If the Orioles pursue CJ Wilson....

[Frobby]

The Orioles can afford one 85-95 million dollar player and one 150+ IMO.

They can afford them if the players actually come close to earning those salaries. A bust would be a huge disaster.

[Sports Guy]

They can afford them if the players actually come close to earning those salaries. A bust would be a huge disaster.

And if they are able to get 3-5 WAR players making very little money.

[El Gordo]

The point is, we don't know what his problems will be. We can try to predict it, but it's very very hard to know. I mean, Drungo said this about Matsuzaka:

And that was consensus. Now he hasn't lived up to the hype and we think "oh, well, we can identify why he failed and avoid it in the future." There's no evidence that we can do this. I've said all along that my argument isn't that these pitchers can't, or won't, be good, but rather that the posting fee followed by money similar to that given players with MLB experience is too uncertain, and prior inefficiencies suggest we haven't found a way to deal w/ this uncertainty. Your confidence that "Darvish is different" doesn't really matter in the long run. Every one who invests in markets on the heels of a bubble bursting thinks "this time it's different."*

*It may be different in two ways: they think it may be different because "this time it's not a bubble," or they may think it's different because "this time I'll get out before it bursts."

All pitching presents risk. But IMO, the worst case scenario, barring injury, with Darvish, is you end up with 4 years of CJ Wilson production for the same money. The best case, is you get one of the top 5 TOR is MLB. If we are going to gamble that''s one I would take.

[Stotle]

Where am I assessing a player's performance and making any point about sample size?

Arguing sample size issue is a fine critique when applied to drawing conclusions of a causal relationship. If I try to draw a causal relationship and you say: sorry, that conclusion is unstable because of sample size issues, that's fine. But I'm not doing that.

Where all you have are small samples, then all you have are small samples. For instance, if I was identifying some problem in translation among these handful of pitchers and there were a larger body of evidence out there that contradicted it, well...sure, that would be a great reason to call out the issue of sample size. But what's the backdrop here? What's the baseline for a stable translation of elite performance? Where's the track record of proper valuation?

My point has been only that the market so far has done a poor job of identifying how elite performance will translate and then valuing it accordingly. In MLB, this issue arises frequently with MiLB-to-MLB translation (see: Wieters, Gordon, etc.) but the system is built in a manner that helps to minimize this issue w/ pre-arb years and even arb-years prior to FA. But there's no buffer here. This market requires FA-type investment with a near-requirement of instant translation of performance.

So, sure, there aren't a lot of data points to go on. But how does that make an argument for investing in the market?

It's potentially tilting at windmills. How many truly elite Japanese pitchers have come over to play in the US? What were their respective ages? What was the professional opinion of the talent level of these pitchers? My guess is that if you are looking for pitchers comparable to Darvish, you are counting them on one hand. To me, the outcome of the contracts given to this pitchers isn't anywhere close to enough to even make the bolded statement above (which in and of itself is a conclusion).

The fact is, poaching of Japanese pitchers doesn't occur often enough for much of any baseline to be set. The pitchers that do come over come over at different points in their career, with different injury history, different talent levels, different makeup, different comfort levels with travel and playing in an unfamiliar environment, etc. If it's my decision, I'll trust the opinion of my international scouts, my eyes, my discussions with Darvish, and my medical team to determine how I think he would perform in the US. I certainly wouldn't allow Kei Igawa's MLB career a seat at the decision-making table...

[Lucky Jim]

All pitching presents risk. But IMO, the worst case scenario, barring injury, with Darvish, is you end up with 4 years of CJ Wilson production for the same money. The best case, is you get one of the top 5 TOR is MLB. If we are going to gamble that''s one I would take.

I'm not going to be upset if they do it. It's not what I would do, however. None of the above invalidates my points, however.

[allstar1579]

In the interview CJ was asked about FA and he said he had plaenty of m0onety cars etc. He said he wanted the security of knowing he was going to be a SP for a few years down the raod in one place. He said he wanted to buy a house and maybe get a dog. He's a West Coast guy, a Taoist, a free spirit, and a sports car racer and collector. Doesn't sound too much like a guy who would go to NYC for a few dollars more.

I'm of the school that the $$$ doesn't always win and some guys have priorities, so I'm with you on that stuff, but I heard a couple weeks ago that he had interest in playing for the Yankees, which we all know is pretty much putting up a big sign that says I can be bought, send me your best offer. He could have just said I'm open to all teams and the right fit, or some other cliched media answer, but he specifically mentioned NYY, so that seems a little fishy to me.

[allstar1579]

They can afford them if the players actually come close to earning those salaries. A bust would be a huge disaster.

Exactly, and with the built in free market inflation, and the premium you have to add to get a player to Baltimore, that pretty much crushes the odds of them being able to earn the contract, especially in the last few years.

[SilentJames]

I get the feeling that Wilson is going to get stupid money from some team. I think he goes to one of the typical big spenders.

[Lucky Jim]

It's potentially tilting at windmills. How many truly elite Japanese pitchers have come over to play in the US? What were their respective ages? What was the professional opinion of the talent level of these pitchers? My guess is that if you are looking for pitchers comparable to Darvish, you are counting them on one hand. To me, the outcome of the contracts given to this pitchers isn't anywhere close to enough to even make the bolded statement above (which in and of itself is a conclusion).

The fact is, poaching of Japanese pitchers doesn't occur often enough for much of any baseline to be set. The pitchers that do come over come over at different points in their career, with different injury history, different talent levels, different makeup, different comfort levels with travel and playing in an unfamiliar environment, etc. If it's my decision, I'll trust the opinion of my international scouts, my eyes, my discussions with Darvish, and my medical team to determine how I think he would perform in the US. I certainly wouldn't allow Kei Igawa's MLB career a seat at the decision-making table...

And I would argue, as I have repeatedly, that long-term contracts to FA pitchers are a bad investment in general, and that for a team with finite resources - like the O's - investing in the more speculative of the two FA pitching markets (the one that requires more translation) would be an imprudent allocation of resources.

Nothing I've said here suggests that no one should ever get these guys. Plenty of folks have enough resources to spend in this market without suffering the enormous opportunity costs that the O's would suffer.

We can agree to disagree, obviously. Whatever "conclusions" I've made are heavily qualified (see "so far"). So, as you would say, "shrug."

[Stotle]

And I would argue, as I have repeatedly, that long-term contracts to FA pitchers are a bad investment in general, and that for a team with finite resources - like the O's - investing in the more speculative of the two FA pitching markets (the one that requires more translation) would be an imprudent allocation of resources.

Nothing I've said here suggests that no one should ever get these guys. Plenty of folks have enough resources to spend in this market without suffering the enormous opportunity costs that the O's would suffer.

We can agree to disagree, obviously. Whatever "conclusions" I've made are heavily qualified (see "so far"). So, as you would say, "shrug."

Highly qualified, overly-wordy statements are great when you're drafting an opinion letter on behalf of your firm. It's next to useless when bantering about baseball -- and I say that without any intention of being a smart ass. The line of thinking that you are following is exactly what's used to argue that Baltimore should stay out of the top tier of the Latin American market. It's fine that you feel the "history" of Japanese pitchers translating to the US is some sort of evidence that caution should be applied when considering posting for a Japanese pitcher. But I don't understand why you get pissy when someone appropriately calls BS. Shrug.

[El Gordo]

And I would argue, as I have repeatedly, that long-term contracts to FA pitchers are a bad investment in general, and that for a team with finite resources - like the O's - investing in the more speculative of the two FA pitching markets (the one that requires more translation) would be an imprudent allocation of resources.

Nothing I've said here suggests that no one should ever get these guys. Plenty of folks have enough resources to spend in this market without suffering the enormous opportunity costs that the O's would suffer.

We can agree to disagree, obviously. Whatever "conclusions" I've made are heavily qualified (see "so far"). So, as you would say, "shrug."

Andy himself couldn't have said it better, H..W. But you are right, the prudent thing to do would be to go after the likes of Wang, Hurang, etc. And I'm sure that is what they will do.

[MarylandAaron]

I don't think we can obtain him without offering him a franchise-crippling contract. Pass.

[Lucky Jim]

Highly qualified, overly-wordy statements are great when you're drafting an opinion letter on behalf of your firm. It's next to useless when bantering about baseball -- and I say that without any intention of being a smart ass. The line of thinking that you are following is exactly what's used to argue that Baltimore should stay out of the top tier of the Latin American market. It's fine that you feel the "history" of Japanese pitchers translating to the US is some sort of evidence that caution should be applied when considering posting for a Japanese pitcher. But I don't understand why you get pissy when someone appropriately calls BS. Shrug.

What I posted is far from "pissy." Can we not "agree to disagree"? Is that not worthy of a "shrug" and move on? (For the record, though, being a smart ass isn't an intent-based crime. Trust me, I'm a repeat offender.)

And what I posted is hardly BS (nor was it particularly long-winded). You've disagreed and you've stated you'd trust your scouts and sit-downs with Darvish. That's great. But the fact that your approach to risk is different than mine is hardly news. I believe that the more you spend, the more probability you should be purchasing, and that this ratio must increase as resources are restricted. If there is a fundamental flaw in this, it has yet to be identified.

And, yes. This is exactly consistent with my take on high-priced international Latin American free agents, and it continues to be my point there and here (and it's one that I - increasingly - do not stand alone on). I'm for international investment, both in the Pacific and in Latin America. I think we should be spending tons. I'd just do it differently. As part of this, if a contract is going to paid commensurate with instant, elite performance, I'm likely to shy away from a certain type of contract. (My thoughts on the LA FA market are based more on inflation, corruption, and highly imperfect information - but also on the problems of translating 16 y.o. physical skills to an adult context.)

As an aside, I'd like to note: If I'm not explaining my point well, that's on me (and no one else). But there are a million knee-jerk, reactionary, or repetitive posts on this board every day. When an amateur (we can't all, unfortunately, follow our dreams into MLB front offices, for lack of opportunity, balls, and talent) tries (it's the effort that counts) to think intelligently about how his favorite team should try to pull itself out of a 14-year tailspin, I don't really think that's worthy of derision as "BS" or accusations of "pissy-ness."

It's just a discussion. It's not the first time we've disagreed on here. If I'm bearish on certain markets and you're bullish, what does it matter? I pretty much stand alone in these posts. I mean, #$%*, what would we discuss otherwise? Like I said, "shrug." Disagreements happen. It's not the end of the world.

[Lucky Jim]

Andy himself couldn't have said it better, H..W. But you are right, the prudent thing to do would be to go after the likes of Wang, Hurang, etc. And I'm sure that is what they will do.

It's true that I agree with AM on this point. Though I would invest more in the Latin America (higher outlay, more presence, more infrastructure). I'd also spend more on the draft. And, increasingly, I'd follow Toronto (A.A.'s) and Stotle's approach to more and more scouting.

[Stotle]

What I posted is far from "pissy." Can we not "agree to disagree"? Is that not worthy of a "shrug" and move on? (For the record, though, being a smart ass isn't an intent-based crime. Trust me, I'm a repeat offender.)

And what I posted is hardly BS (nor was it particularly long-winded). You've disagreed and you've stated you'd trust your scouts and sit-downs with Darvish. That's great. But the fact that your approach to risk is different than mine is hardly news. I believe that the more you spend, the more probability you should be purchasing, and that this ratio must increase as resources are restricted. If there is a fundamental flaw in this, it has yet to be identified.

And, yes. This is exactly consistent with my take on high-priced international Latin American free agents, and it continues to be my point there and here (and it's one that I - increasingly - do not stand alone on). I'm for international investment, both in the Pacific and in Latin America. I think we should be spending tons. I'd just do it differently. As part of this, if a contract is going to paid commensurate with instant, elite performance, I'm likely to shy away from a certain type of contract. (My thoughts on the LA FA market are based more on inflation, corruption, and highly imperfect information - but also on the problems of translating 16 y.o. physical skills to an adult context.)

As an aside, I'd like to note: If I'm not explaining my point well, that's on me (and no one else). But there are a million knee-jerk, reactionary, or repetitive posts on this board every day. When an amateur (we can't all, unfortunately, follow our dreams into MLB front offices, for lack of opportunity, balls, and talent) tries (it's the effort that counts) to think intelligently about how his favorite team should try to pull itself out of a 14-year tailspin, I don't really think that's worthy of derision as "BS" or accusations of "pissy-ness."

It's just a discussion. It's not the first time we've disagreed on here. If I'm bearish on certain markets and you're bullish, what does it matter? I pretty much stand alone in these posts. I mean, #$%*, what would we discuss otherwise? Like I said, "shrug." Disagreements happen. It's not the end of the world.

In all honesty, my last post was made just to rile you up.