Jorge Soler finally available

[Lucky Jim]

That settles it -- Baltimore is at the forefront of a revolution. Hope the HoF is making room in the scouting wing for all the Oceania evaluators.

That's exactly what I said.

By the way, from your big league experience, what's a "souvenir deal" exactly? Does he get hats and autographs as payment?

Bishop hit the headlines in February when the softballer was plucked from virtual obscurity to pen a seven-year contract with Major League heavyweights the Boston Red Sox.

http://tvnz.co.nz/othersports-news/major-league-ambition-young-baseball-player-4416261

[Stotle]

That's exactly what I said.

By the way, from your big league experience, what's a "souvenir deal" exactly? Does he get hats and autographs as payment?

http://tvnz.co.nz/othersports-news/major-league-ambition-young-baseball-player-4416261

Rather than trying to think of other ways to convey I'm posting in a playful/joking manner, I'm going to step back and leave this thread to Pissy Jim. When Lucky Jim returns to talk baseball, let me know and I'll re-join. Pissy Jim, it's all yours.

[Pickles]

I mean, the story said "souvenir deal" from the Red Sox and that the Yankees had taken a look. I don't think it's crazy in as much as I don't think it's crazy that the Rays are trying to develop baseball from the ground up in Brazil. But it's certainly on the branch of the tree that's highly unlikely to produce any fruit anytime soon.

Hold on now Stotle. I seem to recall a conversation on the sunboard two years or so ago, when discussing AM's international efforts, in which I said the Rays operated much in the fashion he was advocating- i.e. focus in the Rule 4 draft and minimal international expenditures, at least at the upper level of the spectrum- and you specifically praised them for their Brazilian venture. Now you seem to be minimalizing it. Am I misremembering?

[Stotle]

Hold on now Stotle. I seem to recall a conversation on the sunboard two years or so ago, when discussing AM's international efforts, in which I said the Rays operated much in the fashion he was advocating- i.e. focus in the Rule 4 draft and minimal international expenditures, at least at the upper level of the spectrum- and you specifically praised them for their Brazilian venture. Now you seem to be minimalizing it. Am I misremembering?

I think your confusion is in your interpretation of my post that you quoted. I certainly never argued that Tampa's efforts in Brazil would be something that would have quick impact. If I were to choose as to which effort would bear more long term fruit -- taking teenage softballers and teaching them baseball vs. building an academy to teach young kids how to develop into teenage prospects, I'd lean towards the latter.

[Pickles]

I think your confusion is in your interpretation of my post that you quoted. I certainly never argued that Tampa's efforts in Brazil would be something that would have quick impact. If I were to choose as to which effort would bear more long term fruit -- taking teenage softballers and teaching them baseball vs. building an academy to teach young kids how to develop into teenage prospects, I'd lean towards the latter.

It's certainly an interesting theoretical discussion. I think you could make the case that the softballers would have an inherent advantage. Josh Hamilton grew up playing softball- obviously not exclusively. BTW, how young are the Brazilians the Rays are taking into their academy. If they're 13 years old, it's probably too late imo.

[Lucky Jim]

It's certainly an interesting theoretical discussion. I think you could make the case that the softballers would have an inherent advantage. Josh Hamilton grew up playing softball- obviously not exclusively. BTW, how young are the Brazilians the Rays are taking into their academy. If they're 13 years old, it's probably too late imo.

I'm less interested in the culture-building exercises, because I think it's highly unlikely you get to reap the benefits of the monopoly save for a very small window.

I think one-off investments in highly-athletic players with convertible skills is speculative, but a low-risk, low-cost kind of speculation. Basketball does it all of the time, though obviously, the skill-set in basketball is wildly different. That said, the conversion from softball to baseball seems somewhat less problematic, though I'd imagine adapting to space/speed will take some time.

[Stotle]

It's certainly an interesting theoretical discussion. I think you could make the case that the softballers would have an inherent advantage. Josh Hamilton grew up playing softball- obviously not exclusively. BTW, how young are the Brazilians the Rays are taking into their academy. If they're 13 years old, it's probably too late imo.

There is no one being brought in because the plans were canceled -- I believe by the legislators in the Brazilian town that was going to house it. It was to target kids starting at age 7 or 8, I believe, and carry them through teens.

Softball swings are generally different, pitch types are different, but sure I guess you could get lucky with someone that just happens to have great hand-eye coordination. I wouldn't put much hope in it. I'd need a softballer or someone familiar with softball being played to tell me if there is a difference in time to react to a pitch (not sure if the distance to plate negates speed difference).

Also, Hamilton should be left out of the discussion if we're going to seriously have a discussion, right?

[Lucky Jim]

There is no one being brought in because the plans were canceled -- I believe by the legislators in the Brazilian town that was going to house it. It was to target kids starting at age 7 or 8, I believe, and carry them through teens.

How does a program like that prevent the problem of free-riders?

[Stotle]

How does a program like that prevent the problem of free-riders?

How do you mean?

[Pickles]

There is no one being brought in because the plans were canceled -- I believe by the legislators in the Brazilian town that was going to house it. It was to target kids starting at age 7 or 8, I believe, and carry them through teens.

Softball swings are generally different, pitch types are different, but sure I guess you could get lucky with someone that just happens to have great hand-eye coordination. I wouldn't put much hope in it. I'd need a softballer or someone familiar with softball being played to tell me if there is a difference in time to react to a pitch (not sure if the distance to plate negates speed difference).

Also, Hamilton should be left out of the discussion if we're going to seriously have a discussion, right?

At that age, you could perhaps bear fruit. The problem is going to be competition. Taking a bunch of kids who've never played before and matching them up w other kids who've never played before, isn't optimal for anybody in terms of developing into an elite player. They'd be better off finding Brazilian athletes of that age that they thought showed potential, and dropping them in the DR or USA- which obviously probably wouldn't fly w too many parents.

[weams]

How does a program like that prevent the problem of free-riders?

Ah, the Buscones will take care of little things like that.

[Lucky Jim]

How do you mean?

You invest, develop, build interest, lay a foundation, and then others come in and poach players once you've done all the infrastructure work.

Obviously, the first wave of players may be locked up, but unless there's some kind of contractual obligation on the part of the amateur talent (and by definition, there wouldn't be), don't market forces predict that others are just going to come in and sign the players you've developed?

Even if all they do is come in and build an academy after you've generated the foundation, it's problematic.

Either way, it significantly diminishes long-term value.

I think that kind of program might have worked better in an era where (i) information wasn't so easy/cheap to get; and (ii) teams were more entrenched in their ways. Now, though, it almost seems like there's an incentive not to try and do that kind of development single-handedly. (Having MLB act as the developmental agent would probably be the solution.)

[Stotle]

At that age, you could perhaps bear fruit. The problem is going to be competition. Taking a bunch of kids who've never played before and matching them up w other kids who've never played before, isn't optimal for anybody in terms of developing into an elite player. They'd be better off finding Brazilian athletes of that age that they thought showed potential, and dropping them in the DR or USA- which obviously probably wouldn't fly w too many parents.

Do you really think that the development occuring at tee ball between the ages of 5 and 7 is the big difference maker here? How is this any different than any little league around the US, other than that has ties to actual MLB org instructors? US kids shouldn't be worried about special training or instruction until like 8th or 9th grade. Figure out if you love the game and want to devote the time -- once your around 12 years old (generally) you are developed enough physically to start focusing on it with an eye towards what you'll need at the next level.

[Stotle]

You invest, develop, build interest, lay a foundation, and then others come in and poach players once you've done all the infrastructure work.

Obviously, the first wave of players may be locked up, but unless there's some kind of contractual obligation on the part of the amateur talent (and by definition, there wouldn't be), don't market forces predict that others are just going to come in and sign the players you've developed?

Even if all they do is come in and build an academy after you've generated the foundation, it's problematic.

Either way, it significantly diminishes long-term value.

I think that kind of program might have worked better in an era where (i) information wasn't so easy/cheap to get; and (ii) teams were more entrenched in their ways. Now, though, it almost seems like there's an incentive not to try and do that kind of development single-handedly. (Having MLB act as the developmental agent would probably be the solution.)

Couldn't disagree more. Players spend four to ten years working with your instructors, I'd say they are much more likely to want to play baseball with you than Random Team X. You'll also have a pretty big advantage in evaluating the players.

If what you said was true, why would anyone bother building an academy in the DR or even keeping their existing academy staffed and in operation? There are already acadamies run by other teams and a Dominican Prospect League -- teams should be able to easily poach from there, right?

[Pickles]

Do you really think that the development occuring at tee ball between the ages of 5 and 7 is the big difference maker here? How is this any different than any little league around the US, other than that has ties to actual MLB org instructors? US kids shouldn't be worried about special training or instruction until like 8th or 9th grade. Figure out if you love the game and want to devote the time -- once your around 12 years old (generally) you are developed enough physically to start focusing on it with an eye towards what you'll need at the next level.

Yes, I do. It isn't so much the organized aspect of the game, but I know I played a lot of unorganized baseball before the age of 12. A lot more unorganized than organized in fact. I suspect the same is true of most of kids who are ball players who grow up in a culture of baseball. Which is an inherent advantage over a kid who grows up playing soccer, and doesn't touch a baseball till adolescence.