Slot vs. Talent

[orioles]

It makes perfect sense all things being equal, that a player an organization drafted high and made a large financial commitment to, is going to get preferential treatment over a comparable player signed for lower dollars. It also is logical that even if things aren’t equal (i.e. a player from a lower round is outperforming his “competition” that was signed for significantly more money) that the higher dollar player is going to get more opportunities. Of course it’s a business and any organization has to protect its investment. My question is where do the Orioles philosophically operate in this realm compared to other clubs. How good does a lower drafted player have to be over the big $$ guy before the O’s would cut their losses and put their eggs in the better player’s basket? Is it fair to assume that a team like the Yankees or Red Sox would care very little about the financial commitment they made and only be concerned with making sure the best players got to the big leagues, even if they have to eat dollars? Is that naive thinking? I get the impression that one of the reasons O’s have been bad so long is that they might be overly focused on making sure that they are perceived as smart drafters by justifying their top picks rather than promoting solely based on talent. I’m curious what others think.

[Jordan Tuwiner]

It's all about talent. The more talented players generally sign for more money so yes, players who signed for more are going to get a spot in a rotation and stuff like that. Players signed for more will also get more chances, yes.

I do not think the Orioles have been bad because of this. All teams handle this pretty similarly. Guys they view as part of the future will stick at levels longer and not get shifted around. It's all business.

[orioles]

I’m sure you’re right. But I ask because I was watching a minor league game recently and sat next to a season ticket holder. I noticed looking at the stats of a position player that the back-up’s BA was significantly higher than the starter. When I asked him about this he said that was because the O’s were paying the starter a lot of money and got the back up for practically nothing at a very low round. He told me that he has seen them both play and in his opinion, the backup was significantly better but didn’t stand a chance since the team had nothing invested in him. When he followed up with “that’s the way the Orioles do things” it got me thinking if this was a reflection on the O’s or just the way baseball is in general. It also might be that these examples are a rare exception and not the norm. I was interested in what others thought. BTW...I don’t want to mention the team or players names since this was just one man’s opinion (though a very O’s knowledgeable fan) and don’t want to be unfair and call out any player.

[Jordan Tuwiner]

That is common. It also probably had to do with the fact that the starting catcher was a high school guy while the backup was a college guy. Older guys can look better when playing against younger competition.

[orioles]

Did I say this was a catcher?

[Jordan Tuwiner]

Did I say this was a catcher?

Sorry, for some reason I read catcher. Either way, could be a similar situation. Could be a guy drafted years before who is still a bit older.

[ofahn]

It makes perfect sense all things being equal, that a player an organization drafted high and made a large financial commitment to, is going to get preferential treatment over a comparable player signed for lower dollars. It also is logical that even if things aren’t equal (i.e. a player from a lower round is outperforming his “competition” that was signed for significantly more money) that the higher dollar player is going to get more opportunities. Of course it’s a business and any organization has to protect its investment. My question is where do the Orioles philosophically operate in this realm compared to other clubs. How good does a lower drafted player have to be over the big $$ guy before the O’s would cut their losses and put their eggs in the better player’s basket? Is it fair to assume that a team like the Yankees or Red Sox would care very little about the financial commitment they made and only be concerned with making sure the best players got to the big leagues, even if they have to eat dollars? Is that naive thinking? I get the impression that one of the reasons O’s have been bad so long is that they might be overly focused on making sure that they are perceived as smart drafters by justifying their top picks rather than promoting solely based on talent. I’m curious what others think.

For the last ten years or so I believe we promoted talent through the farm system, and some cases retained it, so that certain team employees could present the facade to ownership of accomplishing something in player development that they really had not. That skews past precedent in comparing current policy and practice with the past. I have taken notice of how many long time minor leaguers have been traded or let go this year. It certainly gives the impression that each player will be given some opportunity to show they belong and, if they don't, their roster spot will be given to someone else.