Another Fielder thread...my apologies

[DrungoHazewood]

I am not for the signing because I don't think it makes us a contender (and I think it will cripple our shot at boosting further). Build the farm system to the point where a big time signing will make us a contender, then sign one.

I don't think anyone disagrees that's the correct way to do this, but how do you square that with the fact that the Orioles have been steadfast in their unwillingness (or inability) to build a top farm system for about 30, 35 years?

[hose]

That's great in theory. However the farm system is barren. While you may be willing to wait another five years minimum for an inkling of success, the rest of us may not be. And as I've said often, it's easier to wait if you're a reasonably competitive team -.500 for most teams is a step on the road to serious competitiveness. Some, but not many just jump into prominence.

[Frobby]

Preaching to the choir here.

Jon Shephard (crawdaddy) did a nice back of the napkin breakdown of IFA (International Free Agent) and DFA (Domestic) markets and basically concluded that you need to spend about 3.75 MM in the IFA market to return 1 WAR on the investment, which is at least slightly more efficient than that of the DFA market (~4.4 MM).

Here's the link

I think "back of the napkin" is the operative phrase here. It's a decent effort based on information that is available to the public, but I wouldn't put too much weight on it. Also, please not that Jon's study also concludes that $1 spent on the international market buys you what you can get for 70 cents in the Rule 4 draft. So, if one believes Jon's numbers are solid, they support the Orioles' decision to focus more resources on the Rule 4 draft and less on the international market.

[allstar1579]

I think "back of the napkin" is the operative phrase here. It's a decent effort based on information that is available to the public, but I wouldn't put too much weight on it. Also, please not that Jon's study also concludes that $1 spent on the international market buys you what you can get for 70 cents in the Rule 4 draft. So, if one believes Jon's numbers are solid, they support the Orioles' decision to focus more resources on the Rule 4 draft and less on the international market.

Well that is if you are going to take the "shotgun" approach and just scatter money around. In the rule 4 you don't have that option, you can only take what another team hasn't 1 chance in 30, but in the international signings you could in theory sign all top 10 players if you so chose.

You aren't guaranteed to get return on your investment in either, but there is more reliable information out there for the rule 4, it's all just being scared to spend internationally. Other teams are doing it and killing up because of it. You have to take that risk if you want to compete, especially if you aren't going to spend big on FA like our division does. TOR has been quietly signing a TON of international talent the last couple years and as that talent starts hitting the ML team they are going to leave us in the dirt too. If you don't draft like TB you better make up for it somewhere else.

What would you rather have? Michael Pineda, Miguel Sano, Jose Iglesias and A. Hechavarria combined for $4m per year or have M. Gonzalez for $6m per year?

[DrungoHazewood]

Well that is if you are going to take the "shotgun" approach and just scatter money around. In the rule 4 you don't have that option, you can only take what another team hasn't 1 chance in 30, but in the international signings you could in theory sign all top 10 players if you so chose.

That's the issue I see - the O's have a fixed number of draft picks, and the way they don't play the compensation game it's a fewer number of picks than their direct competition. So even if the O's are willing to spend more to get better ROI on Rule 4 draftees, they can't possibly get the quantity of players they need to compete with the Rays and Jays and Sox and Yanks. It's just impossible to out-draft teams that have six or eight first round picks to your one. Unless maybe you set some new paradigm, some over-the-top standard for overslots. And the O's aren't doing that.

[LookinUp]

That's the issue I see - the O's have a fixed number of draft picks, and the way they don't play the compensation game it's a fewer number of picks than their direct competition. So even if the O's are willing to spend more to get better ROI on Rule 4 draftees, they can't possibly get the quantity of players they need to compete with the Rays and Jays and Sox and Yanks. It's just impossible to out-draft teams that have six or eight first round picks to your one. Unless maybe you set some new paradigm, some over-the-top standard for overslots. And the O's aren't doing that.

Welp...we're screwed.

At this point, my rooting interests are as follows:

1. PA to sell the team

2. AM to be fired

3. None of the young talent to have significant injuries

I'd be ok with a Fielder signing because it would be fun, but it clearly wouldn't be accompanied by more signings to make us contenders unless #'s 1 or 2 happen. I'd rather have #'s 1 and 2 happen and for the new owner/GM to invest incredibly heavily on adding young talent through any means necessary.

[mweb]

The only one I can completely agree with are the Marlins. All those other teams have opened the checkbook. Maybe not during that specific year, but their philosophies are to spend when they have to.

Angels payroll was 15th that year and they did not have any big time free agents. They didn't start spending more til later.

White Sox were 13th the year they won and did not have anyone that jumped out at me as a big free agent. They also didn't spend a great deal until after winning it all.

Cards were 11th.

Phillies were 12th and have since spent a lot more.

Giants were 10th with about 19% of their payroll tied up in their one big time free agent: Barry Zito. Rowand was the next biggest signing at 5/60. So they won despite their biggest free agents.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Angels payroll was 15th that year and they did not have any big time free agents. They didn't start spending more til later.

White Sox were 13th the year they won and did not have anyone that jumped out at me as a big free agent. They also didn't spend a great deal until after winning it all.

Cards were 11th.

Phillies were 12th and have since spent a lot more.

Giants were 10th with about 19% of their payroll tied up in their one big time free agent: Barry Zito. Rowand was the next biggest signing at 5/60. So they won despite their biggest free agents.

Yea that's what I meant. Almost every WS winner this decade has adopted or already did adopt the idea of spending. And none of them play in the same division as Boston and New York (except those two teams obviously).

If you can make it to the big dance, it's pretty much a crap shoot after that.

[mweb]

Yea that's what I meant. Almost every WS winner this decade has adopted or already did adopt the idea of spending. And none of them play in the same division as Boston and New York (except those two teams obviously).

If you can make it to the big dance, it's pretty much a crap shoot after that.

I'm confused as to how that's what you meant since none of those teams spent that much or got big-time free agents that actually helped them win. Most of them increased their spending afterwards and are now known as more of spenders due to that. But big spending is not why they won and not relevant to the point. They were obviously above average spenders and of course spending more should help a team contend.

[mweb]

Looking at the original question, can anyone come up with a list of examples of teams that were in a similar situation as the O's and then went out and got a premium free agent? I'm guessing the track record of those occurances is not very good.

[RVAbird]

I think "back of the napkin" is the operative phrase here.

That's why I used it

It's a decent effort based on information that is available to the public, but I wouldn't put too much weight on it. Also, please not that Jon's study also concludes that $1 spent on the international market buys you what you can get for 70 cents in the Rule 4 draft. So, if one believes Jon's numbers are solid, they support the Orioles' decision to focus more resources on the Rule 4 draft and less on the international market.

I think Jon would be the first to tell you that. The rule 4 draft is a more efficient investment than the international market. That should be pretty obvious.

But the international market appears to be more efficient than domestic free agency. I think that's really the key here. If you want to only utilize the most efficient market, you'd build entirely through the draft. But that's not a succesful strategy. Why? Because it too severely limits the talent pool. There are thousands of other good players to choose from in the international and domestic free agent markets, and due to the slotting process of the draft, it's impossible to corner the market there regardless of how much you're willing to spend.

What I want to know is why AM avoids substantial IFA deals due to their perceived inefficiency, but is perfectly willing to invest millions in the least efficient asset (relievers) in the least efficient market (domestic free agency).

[RVAbird]

That's the issue I see - the O's have a fixed number of draft picks, and the way they don't play the compensation game it's a fewer number of picks than their direct competition. So even if the O's are willing to spend more to get better ROI on Rule 4 draftees, they can't possibly get the quantity of players they need to compete with the Rays and Jays and Sox and Yanks. It's just impossible to out-draft teams that have six or eight first round picks to your one. Unless maybe you set some new paradigm, some over-the-top standard for overslots. And the O's aren't doing that.

Bingo.

The fact that in can't be cornered is precisely the reason that Rule IV is the most efficient market. The Orioles don't even boost opportunity through compensation picks.

[Meh_Orioles]

Don't get me wrong....getting Fielder would be amazing, but....we need a pitching that will hold teams to single-digit run totals or it doesn't matter who is in our lineup. Pitching has been a problem for 15 years and really hasn't been addressed.

[RVAbird]

If the IFA market is even the slightest bit more efficient that the FA market, then every dollar spent on international talent is (theoretically) a better investment than every dollar spent on domestic talent.

Even if it's close or the DFA market proves to be slightly more efficient, nothing can justify a 30-1 ratio of spending on domestic vs. international FAs.

[clapdiddy]

If I'm not mistaken, we passed on some players (and actually drafted one in Delmonico) who would be "high dollar" signings. I'd much rather see the money spent on those players than on Gregg/Vlad/Lee.