AM on Int'l spending

[Flosman]

I love the apologists on here. Always find ways to justify stupidity.

Atkins was never going to be good..Sano has a chance to be very good and, at the very least, provide us good depth in case we want to make a trade. He was abetter way to spend money and there really isn't any question about that.

Guthrie was NEVER going to be a good starter either. I love the know it all arm chair GMs around here myself. I think the club has a huge scouting/development problem, but I really don't know where the problem is. I know it was here long before AM and I am very worried it has not been corrected yet.

How much good depth is Rowell providing??? If Sano hits no better than he has so far this year the Twins will have a very expensive poor man's Ed Rodgers in a couple of seasons. He might even experience Dominican rapid aging syndrome, his birth record has already been the subject of a lot of scrutiny. I am not even saying AM is right. I am saying you do not know if he is wrong. We have several international guys that were signed under AMs watch that are starting to make some noise. AM will be judged on the bets he makes and so far he has mixed limited results at best. That is not being an apologist that is what a rational person would say with the VERY limited information available to judge. Of course in your mind AM should have signed multiple international guys that are making and impact at the age of 20-21 or is it just that he should have spent more money?

[El Gordo]

I think Felix Pie is a great example of the current system in the DR. You get a guy with 5 tools who didn't start playing competitively until he was 16, and had never developed basic baseball instincts. He had to survive on his talent when he hit the MiL and had little opportunity to learn the game, and refine his skills.

[Stotle]

Of course. But I'm sure JJ didn't draft those two thinking, "organizational depth."

I think I misunderstood SG's point of "trade depth" as opposed to actual depth. You don't go signing 17 year old Dominican kids as trade depth, you do it because you think they're going to be the shortstop for your ML club.

I don't disagree. I guess I was just pointing out that Sano was the equivalent of a top tier high schooler, from the perspective of evaluators. Probably best equated to a HSer that really shows a ton of potential, but is asking for more money than a team REALLY wants to give given the current risk profile of the player. He's not the caliber of Bundy or Lindor or Starling or Machado because there is more uncertainty, but he's also not someone who is likely at all to simply flame out at rookie ball.

[Stotle]

I think Felix Pie is a great example of the current system in the DR. You get a guy with 5 tools who didn't start playing competitively until he was 16, and had never developed basic baseball instincts. He had to survive on his talent when he hit the MiL and had little opportunity to learn the game, and refine his skills.

I disagree. Pie wasn't even partaking in baseball workouts. He was hanging out at the field and a Cubs scout saw him and told him to go work out as well. He wasn't focused on baseball. I think it's unfair to characterize the country of DR as full of young players that don't actually play the game.

[Sports Guy]

How much good depth is Rowell providing???

None...because the Orioles didn't pick up on his issues and trade him earlier.

If Sano hits no better than he has so far this year the Twins will have a very expensive poor man's Ed Rodgers in a couple of seasons.

Sano is 18 freakin years old...He has a while to develop. I bet if Dylan Bundy has a terrible first season that you won't be talking about him like he is a flop.

He might even experience Dominican rapid aging syndrome, his birth record has already been the subject of a lot of scrutiny. I am not even saying AM is right. I am saying you do not know if he is wrong

His ineptitude since he has been our GM(and really back to his Chicago days) say that he is wrong..Why does he deserve a benefit of the doubt? Why does PA?

We have several international guys that were signed under AMs watch that are starting to make some noise

Which just proves that we should be signing more..Thanks for making my argument.

[Sports Guy]

Of course. But I'm sure JJ didn't draft those two thinking, "organizational depth."

I think I misunderstood SG's point of "trade depth" as opposed to actual depth. You don't go signing 17 year old Dominican kids as trade depth, you do it because you think they're going to be the shortstop for your ML club.

My point was that if you see signs in the player and you don't believe they will be any good, you can cut your losses early and try and use him to obtain someone you like more.

[Hank Scorpio]

For the record, I'm not saying that I would have signed Garrett Atkins and not signed Sano.

Obviously the Orioles are at best doing the bare minimum in the Domincan. They need to take more risks and try to embrace the culture and set up rather than rage against it.

The bigger question for me is, what's the hit rate of these Buscone-raised players... and are you better off paying millions for one 16 year old kid over 3 dozen others? What's the exhibition format?

And with regard to the games, what's the talent level they're facing like? Is it all projection?

[Sports Guy]

For the record, I'm not saying that I would have signed Garrett Atkins and not signed Sano.

Obviously the Orioles are at best doing the bare minimum in the Domincan. They need to take more risks and try to embrace the culture and set up rather than rage against it.

The bigger question for me is, what's the hit rate of these Buscone-raised players... and are you better off paying millions for one 16 year old kid over 3 dozen others? What's the exhibition format?

And with regard to the games, what's the talent level they're facing like? Is it all projection?

Isn't that a case by case basis?

If you believe there is some elite talent, then you spend for it. If you don't know, go with the quantity idea.

I would like to see them spending 3-7 million on Int'l talent every year and 10+ million on amateur talent every year...Some years, depending on what's there, you spend less and some years you spend more.

[El Gordo]

I disagree. Pie wasn't even partaking in baseball workouts. He was hanging out at the field and a Cubs scout saw him and told him to go work out as well. He wasn't focused on baseball. I think it's unfair to characterize the country of DR as full of young players that don't actually play the game.

Felix played, but not in an organized way. What opportunities are there for organized play are there in the DR, outside of the Buscon system.

[Stotle]

Felix played, but not in an organized way. What opportunities are there for organized play are there in the DR, outside of the Buscon system.

Outside of all of the Major League Academies and the Dominican Prospect League I was explaining?

[El Gordo]

Outside of all of the Major League Academies and the Dominican Prospect League I was explaining?

Between the ages of 8 and 16. Do kids just go sign up for a ML Academy at 8 or do they have to be selected? And at what age do they begin playing in prospect leagues?

[Hank Scorpio]

I don't disagree. I guess I was just pointing out that Sano was the equivalent of a top tier high schooler, from the perspective of evaluators. Probably best equated to a HSer that really shows a ton of potential, but is asking for more money than a team REALLY wants to give given the current risk profile of the player. He's not the caliber of Bundy or Lindor or Starling or Machado because there is more uncertainty, but he's also not someone who is likely at all to simply flame out at rookie ball.

Eh, wasn't really suggesting he'd flame out in rookie ball. Just saying that'd be worst case scenario.

If Sano is 19-20 years old putting up a 25%-30% K rate for the Beloit Snappers, how marketable will he be?

[Flosman]

I don't think it's one or the other. I mean, the kids play the game. It isn't like they are manufactured at Buscone Corp. set foot on a field for the first time once the reach the Dominican Summer League for their ML org. My understanding of Mr. MacPhail's comments (and I agree with the critiques to an extent) are that once these kids are old enough and good enough to be pegged as "prospects" they get scooped up and "showcased" to ML clubs. There isn't a HS league or college league or whatever for them to play in, as the primary source of evaluation. Rather, it's workouts.

To me, the concern is AGE and not game views. Let's be honest, for the top kids in HS ball here in the states, HS leagues are a joke. The difference is that these kids also play on traveling teams and at several scouting events that include game play. But I do not think for one second that these top players wouldn't stand out every bit as much in a showcase/workout setting as they do in travel team action. I mean, I attend these events. They are useful. Getting 60 times, watching BP, watching a bullpen session, are all excellent ways to get an idea of what a player can do.

But the age is an issue. If ML teams were forced to make decisions about US kids at age 16, there would be a lot more "expensive flops" as well. That's what happens when you are projecting out four, five, six years. The fact that Dylan Bundy got to carve up overmatched HSers added little to his evaluation that couldn't have otherwise been observed with him throwing a simulated game, or a bullpen session (the additions would be presence, his ability to deal with a bad call/error/bad pitch/etc., to the extent he ran into those situations against shoddy competition).

Don't get me wrong -- games are great, and they are very useful in evaluating. Ideally you get workouts and a game. If having to choose between one or the other, I don't know what I'd pick. I've had plenty of fruitless games attended where a kid I was sitting on went 0-1 with two walks and a HBP and had one ball hit to him. That isn't particularly useful, and unless you are making it out to every game your looks are probably going to be inconsistent.

The DPL was set up 1) to provide game opportunity to view the best prospects playing against each other (like a World Wood Bat Association tournament here in the states -- top wood bat travel teams play against each other and usually include some of the best HSers), and 2) to provide extended looks at players who haven't yet signed with a ML team.

The way the situation has been explained to me, the top kids are identified, stick out in workouts (perhaps games, as well) and are usually pursued by multiple suitors and signed at some point after the July 2 deadline but reasonably so (like within a month or so -- depending on if draft signing deadline takes focus away from the int'l front, momentarily for some orgs). There are a lot of kids that are clearly good ballplayers, but are not deemed ready for pro ball or are holding out for more money than a team wants to pay. Those kids can sign with anyone at anytime, moving forward. The DPL gives them a league to play in and an avenue for evaluators to follow the kids outside of that top tier of bonus baby int'l prospects. It might mean finding a 17 year old with some projection that shows some workable pitches (maybe signs for 50,000), or it might be a 16 or 17 year old that hit a growth spurt or velo bump and is now a much better prospect than he was back in July.

Evaluating teenagers is a fluid process, and their development is almost never linear. So, in my opinion, the idea of a League providing an avenue to monitor this progress can only be a good thing.

I think one of the issues that AM is troubled by the Buscon's practice of limiting exposure of the top guys AFTER they are identified. It is smart on their part more exposure only gives teams the opportunity to identify weaknesses. When helping kids I coach through the recruiting process I advise 4.5 guys that have run a 4.4 in a controlled environment but are unlikely to back the number up to skip combine camps that will only call their speed into question. On the player's card he is already a 4.4 guy it can only get worse for them to run another 40. We work on getting their speed to play up in games thus backing up what is on the card with film. But the system in the DR sounds like put on a combine type display and then hide the kid if the results a similar to what a stud would produce.

Stotle's comments on the development of kids in this age range is very true. You really don't know what you are going to end up with until they are 18-19 17 at the absolute earliest. It is common for HUGE gains from unexpected players and guys with great potential never to get any better at these ages.

[Hank Scorpio]

Isn't that a case by case basis?

If you believe there is some elite talent, then you spend for it. If you don't know, go with the quantity idea.

I would like to see them spending 3-7 million on Int'l talent every year and 10+ million on amateur talent every year...Some years, depending on what's there, you spend less and some years you spend more.

I don't disagree with your point.

This is the one area where the playing field is currently relatively level for whatever reason.

[CSB Jack]

Going back to my overslot example, do you think another GM could convince Angelos the Orioles should pay money to the buscones for their talent?

Andy doesn't believe in it himself, so of course he won't persuade Angelos.

If you were the GM (and this is an open question to all who feel this way, not just JTrea), how would you make your argument in favor of spending increased money for international free agent signings? It seems intuitive that spending more money and/or signing more players will pay off in greater talent but that is a fallacy easily enough disproven. Of course, the money spent has to be on appropriate talent, not just thrown at any kid who will sign.

So what is the data that shows the correlation between expenditure and return? At what point does the money spent start to pay off? What is the point of diminishing returns? I am not arguing against it, I just want to hear the case made based on real data, such as the total signings by all MLB teams, the amount per player, what the perceived return on expenditures is for say a five year period beginning in 2002-2004 so that we have a long enough period of time to see how the players signed progressed through the organization. If I were PGA, to convince me I'd want to see also if there are other factors at work besides just spending money, and what needs to be done to identify prospects on which to spend it.

Elsewhere in this thread SG said:

Hoosiers has mentioned before that if we just spent another 2M or so on the INt'l side of things, then people would be happier...And you know what, he is absolutely right because 2M more dollars is probably anywhere from 5-15 new players into the organization.

For the higher number of players (lower average bonus per player) that equates to roughly the equivalent of what is paid for drafted players in rounds 6-10 on average. Is that an appropriate valuation for these players? Or is a higher cost and higher risk required because of the potentially greater upside? Are we talking about missing out on Hall of Famers, occasional All-Stars, steady ML roster guys, or organizational depth?

Bottom line, use collective data to convince me (assuming I am PGA) that additional money invested in international signings above what is currently being allocated is money better spent than on domestic scouting or other operations, or just kept in my pocket so I can pay salaries to established ML players, either on my roster already or that I want to obtain via trade or free agency.