AM on Int'l spending

[hoosiers]

Nice to hear that AM is spending more this year - hopefully, we will add another DR Top 40 prospect like last season and a second or third $100k player and close a portion of the incremental $1M-$2M most here want to spend internationally.

I think AM needs to do a significantly better job explaining why other organizations step up and take these multi-million $ risks on international players.

I think the Atkins-Sano comparison is a poor one, but even allowing for it, I would like those who wanted the $3M spent on Sano to look at where he is ranked today in the Minnesota system and the signing bonuses required to land those prospects just ahead and just behind him. Sano has largely developed as expected, yet there are clearly much cheaper players ranked just above and just below him. The top of the international market would appear to generate lesser returns than most every other player acquisition option.

It is nice to see Schoop advancing well in our system. I do not know his signing bonus, but it was likely a very small one and he is likely to be ranked well ahead of many other international signees of all bonus ranges entering next season - so our scouts there must be doing something right.

[Frobby]

What is the track record over the last 10 years or so of big-bonus youngsters from the DR becoming good major league players? Obviously there are a lot of good players from the DR, but how many of them got large signing bonuses, and how many didn't? I'd love to see a list of the top 100 international signing bonuses over the last 10 years, and how those players have performed. I really feel that there is a big information deficit here that makes it hard to assess whether MacPhail's position has any merit, or whether he is just blowing smoke.

[Catch 8]

This is just not going to do. Not in this division, anyway. I don't know how these other teams are doing it but the Orioles have to get in there. It's like fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

...while our competition has six arms.

[Flosman]

What is the track record over the last 10 years or so of big-bonus youngsters from the DR becoming good major league players? Obviously there are a lot of good players from the DR, but how many of them got large signing bonuses, and how many didn't? I'd love to see a list of the top 100 international signing bonuses over the last 10 years, and how those players have performed. I really feel that there is a big information deficit here that makes it hard to assess whether MacPhail's position has any merit, or whether he is just blowing smoke.

Your asking a question that I doubt many on here (by many I mean more than 1 or 2 posters) know the answer to. With AMs methodical approach I bet he knows right off the top of his head and I bet his position has some support with the numbers. It won't matter to the drum beaters here and the mere mentioning of the data will lead to posters referred to as apologist and dolts.

[JERSEYORIOLE]

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:

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.

Good post. However, this is way too logical for some people. They just want to see more money spent, as if that solves anything. I started a post a week ago, that named every international player on every team in the American League East. Only the Yankees had an impact player on their team that was signed by them, two of them actually, Cano and Riveria. No other team had an impact player that they had signed. I wonder how much money has been wasted signing all these players. Their has to be some data on rate of return. Maybe AM has it and doesn't like it. You can win at every spin of the roulette wheel if you put money on every number.

[El Gordo]

What is the track record over the last 10 years or so of big-bonus youngsters from the DR becoming good major league players? Obviously there are a lot of good players from the DR, but how many of them got large signing bonuses, and how many didn't? I'd love to see a list of the top 100 international signing bonuses over the last 10 years, and how those players have performed. I really feel that there is a big information deficit here that makes it hard to assess whether MacPhail's position has any merit, or whether he is just blowing smoke.

I agree. In the absence of info the argument seems to be, "well if other teams are spending, we should too."I would love for some of our self appointed in house experts to provide the info CBS Jack asks for in his post #60. I'm willing to be conviced but not by simple minded arguments.

[Frobby]

Here is an interesting article from 2 years ago that backs up some of the things MacPhail is saying:

One week after the international signing period opened July 2, the dollars spent on international signings have more than tripled in a five-year period. MLB commissioner Bud Selig, who did not bargain for any slotting system, now beats on teams to stick to a strict, arbitrary slotting system for American players in the draft. Even so, teams were climbing over one another this past week to tell their fans they're spending big in the Latino market. The Cardinals announced they signed 16-year-old outfielder Wagner Mateo for $3.1 million. The Pirates kept the media advised of their bidding on shortstop Miguel Sano, although questions exist about his name and age.

In 2002, Felix Hernandez signed with the Mariners for $710,000. Only 10 Latin American free agents previously had been signed for higher bonuses, and many of them were Cuban major leaguers. Francisco Rodriguez earned $950,000, Francisco Liriano $900,000 and Ervin Santana $725,000. Within the first week after July 2 this year, 18 players have been signed for $700,000 or more. That list will expand significantly before the end of 2009.

Yet five teams who scouted Mateo said that if he were in the U.S. draft, he would be a third-rounder. "His workouts were incredible, but we never saw him get a hit in games," one American League executive said.

* * *

They can work on a system that allows anyone to buy birth certificates and hospital records on the open market. But they cannot fix the distorted buscones system.

"It is amazing to see these kids in a tryout setting -- they can tune up a BP fastball and run the 60 but lack instincts and most basic fundamentals," one international scouting director said. "When we put them in games, their lack of game-playing skills stick out -- they can't slide, don't recognize situations. But buscones continue to emphasize power, arm strength and speed -- nothing else. What's more, they're taken out of school at 10 years old, and their abilities to retain information are severely hindered. We try to get these kids to learn English, yet their Spanish isn't very good."

Contrast that to Pedro Martinez, whose mother forced him to be educated, and brother Ramon insisted he learn English. Martinez went to the U.S., is fluent and can tell anecdotes in two languages, and is one of the most intelligent people and pitchers of the past 25 years.

"We're signing teenage kids based on tools, nothing else," one general manager said. "The gamble is huge. Projections based simply on the 60-yard dash and batting practice is dangerous."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4316025&name=gammons_peter

I'm not saying this entirely validates MacPhail's point of view, but it does show that his position isn't unsupported. Of course, some of these quotes may come from MacPhail or someone else in our organization for all we know.

[Hank Scorpio]

What is the track record over the last 10 years or so of big-bonus youngsters from the DR becoming good major league players? Obviously there are a lot of good players from the DR, but how many of them got large signing bonuses, and how many didn't? I'd love to see a list of the top 100 international signing bonuses over the last 10 years, and how those players have performed. I really feel that there is a big information deficit here that makes it hard to assess whether MacPhail's position has any merit, or whether he is just blowing smoke.

This is the kind of information I'm after. What's the conversion rate?

Found this:

At that time, buscones sell their commodities to the highest bidder. Once the boys get sold to a MLB team, they spend every waking hour playing baseball in the team's baseball academy. The boys are either sent to the U.S. to play baseball or left in the dust. An estimated ninety-seven percent of these boys get left behind.

That's a good article.

[Stotle]

What is the track record over the last 10 years or so of big-bonus youngsters from the DR becoming good major league players? Obviously there are a lot of good players from the DR, but how many of them got large signing bonuses, and how many didn't? I'd love to see a list of the top 100 international signing bonuses over the last 10 years, and how those players have performed. I really feel that there is a big information deficit here that makes it hard to assess whether MacPhail's position has any merit, or whether he is just blowing smoke.

Your asking a question that I doubt many on here (by many I mean more than 1 or 2 posters) know the answer to. With AMs methodical approach I bet he knows right off the top of his head and I bet his position has some support with the numbers. It won't matter to the drum beaters here and the mere mentioning of the data will lead to posters referred to as apologist and dolts.

Good post. However, this is way too logical for some people. They just want to see more money spent, as if that solves anything. I started a post a week ago, that named every international player on every team in the American League East. Only the Yankees had an impact player on their team that was signed by them, two of them actually, Cano and Riveria. No other team had an impact player that they had signed. I wonder how much money has been wasted signing all these players. Their has to be some data on rate of return. Maybe AM has it and doesn't like it. You can win at every spin of the roulette wheel if you put money on every number.

I agree. In the absence of info the argument seems to be, "well if other teams are spending, we should too."I would love for some of our self appointed in house experts to provide the info CBS Jack asks for in his post #60. I'm willing to be conviced but not by simple minded arguments.

Just to be clear, you are not satisfied looking at what the rest of baseball does and acknowledging that at least some not-insignificant presence in the DR is preferable. Absent hard data and reports provided by message board posters, your preference is to agree with Baltimore and ignore an avenue of talent acquisition because there might be validity to the idea that the top tier of that cross-section is overpriced.

Personally, I don't care HOW Baltimore spends or HOW MUCH Baltimore spends, but the idea that the best course of action is to throw up your hands and say, "It's too crazy down here!" seems like a copout. You get better by figuring out how to put together a better process than other teams. Why do you all think Tampa is striking ground in Brazil (and getting Brazil to pay for a chunk of it, by the way)? What about Venezuela? What about trying to be the best organization at spotting the "late blooming" 17 and 18 year olds in the Dominican Republic? What about (INSERT A COOL IDEA HERE)?

Discussion of this subject seldom leads to anything useful because both entrenched sides just fall back on broad strokes and talking points. "I'm the rationale one because blah blah blah blah blah." Of course the answer is not just throwing tons of money around on the most expensive kids. I think it's also obvious that the best course of action is not to simply ignore that cross-section, and certainly not the country as a whole -- some disagree.

I personally don't care about using Baseball America as an ultimate source, but if people accept it as such I'm fine for purposes of discussion. Anyone that believes MacPhail is taking the correct course of action in the Dominican Republic, and internationally in general, care to offer up when you expect Baltimore to be a top 5 or top 10 organization from an overall Minor League talent perspective? How about when they are at least third or second in their own division? Anyone?

[Hank Scorpio]

Just to be clear, you are not satisfied looking at what the rest of baseball does and acknowledging that at least some not-insignificant presence in the DR is preferable. Absent hard data and reports provided by message board posters, your preference is to agree with Baltimore and ignore an avenue of talent acquisition because there might be validity to the idea that the top tier of that cross-section is overpriced.

Personally, I don't care HOW Baltimore spends or HOW MUCH Baltimore spends, but the idea that the best course of action is to throw up your hands and say, "It's too crazy down here!" seems like a copout. You get better by figuring out how to put together a better process than other teams. Why do you all think Tampa is striking ground in Brazil (and getting Brazil to pay for a chunk of it, by the way)? What about Venezuela? What about trying to be the best organization at spotting the "late blooming" 17 and 18 year olds in the Dominican Republic? What about (INSERT A COOL IDEA HERE)?

Discussion of this subject seldom leads to anything useful because both entrenched sides just fall back on broad strokes and talking points. "I'm the rationale one because blah blah blah blah blah." Of course the answer is not just throwing tons of money around on the most expensive kids. I think it's also obvious that the best course of action is not to simply ignore that cross-section, and certainly not the country as a whole -- some disagree.

I personally don't care about using Baseball America as an ultimate source, but if people accept it as such I'm fine for purposes of discussion. Anyone that believes MacPhail is taking the correct course of action in the Dominican Republic, and internationally in general, care to offer up when you expect Baltimore to be a top 5 or top 10 organization from an overall Minor League talent perspective? How about when they are at least third or second in their own division? Anyone?

My basic question is simply this:

Is it accurate to say that they're ignoring it?

[GoldGlove21]

I believe the Orioles should be spending $50M on the on field product and $35M on drafting and signing international talent. Instead we continue to spend a lot ofmoney on below average teams. We continue to be stuck in the middle and that is no place to be IMO.

[Frobby]

Just to be clear, your preference is to ignore an avenue of talent acquisition because there might be validity to the idea that the top tier of that cross-section is overpriced.

Personally, I don't care HOW Baltimore spends or HOW MUCH Baltimore spends, but the idea that the best course of action is to throw up your hands and say, "It's too crazy down here!" seems like a copout. You get better by figuring out how to put together a better process than other teams. Why do you all think Tampa is striking ground in Brazil (and getting Brazil to pay for a chunk of it, by the way)? What about Venezuela? What about trying to be the best organization at spotting the "late blooming" 17 and 18 year olds in the Dominican Republic? What about (INSERT A COOL IDEA HERE)?

Discussion of this subject seldom leads to anything useful because both entrenched sides just fall back on broad strokes and talking points. "I'm the rationale one because blah blah blah blah blah." Of course the answer is not just throwing tons of money around on the most expensive kids. I think it's also obvious that the best course of action is not to simply ignore that cross-section, and certainly not the country as a whole -- some disagree.

I personally don't care about using Baseball America as an ultimate source, but if people accept it as such I'm fine for purposes of discussion. Anyone that believes MacPhail is taking the correct course of action in the Dominican Republic, and internationally in general, care to offer up when you expect Baltimore to be a top 5 or top 10 organization from an overall Minor League talent perspective? How about when they are at least third or second in their own division? Anyone?

Your post responds to four posters, including me. I'm not taking any position as to whether MacPhail is right or wrong -- I am simply stating that I wish I had more information on which to judge what he is saying. And to be clear, nobody is advocating abandoning the DR, and it is not as if the Orioles have no presence there. MacPhail states that they have increase their spending on talent, and they have invested in an academy in the last few years as well, so you are building a straw man argument to knock down. The issue at hand is whether to spend money on players who command large bonuses, without having the same quality of information that you have about a player who receives a similar bonus in the United States. One can argue that the money spent on such bonuses would be better spent (1) signing a larger number of international players to smaller bonuses, (2) signing some overslots in the U.S. amateur draft, or (3) increasing the major league payroll, or (4) on scouts, caoches or infrastructure, etc. But as as a starting point, it would be nice to know how many of the big-bonus international players pan out, and what yield you get for your spend. Do you disagree with that?

[Stotle]

My basic question is simply this:

Is it accurate to say that they're ignoring it?

I guess I'd counter with "what is the ratio of international players in the O's system as opposed to 1) the average ML system, and 2) the other systems in the AL East"?

[Hank Scorpio]

I guess I'd counter with "what is the ratio of international players in the O's system as opposed to 1) the average ML system, and 2) the other systems in the AL East"?

So the question then becomes, why do they really even field a DSL squad, as the undertaking has been relatively fruitless thus far.

They've been down there since 1996, IIRC. Doing very little.

[skanar]

This thread has moved me from the "we-don't-spend-enough-internationally-and-that's-wrong" camp to the "hmm" camp. I'm no longer convinced that the Orioles are making a serious mistake. It may be that they are carefully calculating risk and have decided that raw, toolsy Dominican teenagers are money poorly spent. Or it may not. Hmm.