Camden Depot: Overrated, Expensive, Central And South American Prospects

[clapdiddy]

Jorge Soler. 9 years/30M. Signed through 2020. How smart does that look?

Looks pretty darn good right now. He'll be around up to his age 28 season at a reasonable price.

[Redskins Rick]

http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/top-30-international-prospects-signed-2/

The top 30 international Latin prospects who signed this year. Zero signed by the O's. The top guys signed for 3.9M. The guys closer to the 20-30 range signed in the 500K range. We aren't talking about spending 20M bucks here. We are talking about spending 2-3M on some top 30 guys. I guess everyone else is stupid and the Orioles are the smart ones.

I only counted 23 teams that signed the top 30 guys.

So, if I do the math, it appears that the Orioles are not the only ones.

[pcbothwel]

Looks pretty darn good right now. He'll be around up to his age 28 season at a reasonable price.

Agreed, but hindsight is 20/20. Two things of importance:

1) Last year there were many that thought he could bust. And signing a major league contract limited the amount of times/years they could option him down.

2) While he'll only get 3.6M in 2016 and 2017, he will opt out into arbitration for 18, 19, and 20. So he'll make well over 30M for those nine years.

Im not saying its a bad deal, but the contract surely came with risk at the time.

[Aristotelian]

If you are saying there are only two decent players on the list then I have this to say.

Gary Sanchez, 16, C, 2009, Yankees, D.R., $3,000,000 (one of the top catching prospects in the minors)

Miguel Cabrera - one of the best players of all baseball history

Miguel Sano - one of the best young power hitters in the game

Jurickson Profar - Best prospect in the game 2 years ago, derailed by injuries so far

Jesus Montero, Joel Guzman, Wily Mo Pena, Fernando Martinez, all had minor careers of varying degrees.

Now let's take a look at any ML draft after the first 10 or 15 picks and see how many decent players there were. We're talking about the same type of money being spent.

I still get two names. Profar is still a prospect but stock is falling by the day. Jesus Montero, really? I guess you could make a case for Wily Mo. Had a couple of decent years but overall was below replacement value. See what happens with Sanchez. Maybe between him and Profar you get a third name.

Achieving a high prospect ranking or even making it to the bigs does not make it a successful investment. The player has to produce at the MLB level more than the team has put in. Not just the signing bonus, but the minor league and MLB salary dollars.

[Three Run Homer]

The author concludes that clubs get a lower return on investment for international amateur players than they do for players selected in the draft.

Well, duh. I could have told you that without looking at any numbers. Bonuses paid to players in the draft are artificially restrained by monopsony power (and now by a formal slotting system). International players are signed in a free market (only recently restrained by a bonus pool). Of course you are going to pay more for players outside the draft.

But so what? Teams have a limited number of draft picks. You cannot reallocate talent from international signings to the draft. The only relevant decision on the margin is whether spending on international talent is better than not spending on international talent.

The fact remains that if one-third of the best prospects of baseball are coming from international sources outside of the draft, then you are reducing your potential talent pool by one-third by ignoring the international market.

[Aristotelian]

But so what? Teams have a limited number of draft picks. You cannot reallocate talent from international signings to the draft. The only relevant decision on the margin is whether spending on international talent is better than not spending on international talent.

I don't think anyone is saying don't spend on international period. The article is saying don't spend on particular Latin markets where you don't even know the age of the players. (I would be interested to tease apart some of the particular countries, however, instead of lumping all of Latin America (except Cuba) together. Schoop's Curacao is much different economically than the DR, for instance).

Any contract comes with risk. Aroldis Chapman, Kendry Morales, Yoenis Cespedes, Yasiel Puig, Rusney Castillo, Yosmany Tomas, Jorge Soler, Yoan Moncada.

I do agree that it would have been nice to see the O's in on some of these guys. At least in Cuba you have an idea of how the players will perform against professional competition.

[Aristotelian]

You know what the funny thing is? Weams and a bunch of posters defending the exclusion of the top Latin prospects would be doing cartwheels if we actually signed one or two. So top prospects don't count, huh? That's funny too. So signing Dylan Bundy for 6M was stupid then, right?

So far, Bundy has been a massive failure of a draft pick. I don't know how you could possibly argue otherwise.

[Redskins Rick]

So far, Bundy has been a massive failure of a draft pick. I don't know how you could possibly argue otherwise.

So far yes, but not a failure to recognize talent.

2016 performance should dictate on how Bundy will be perceived down the road, if he was a failure or not.

[El Gordo]

The Orioles are among the worst franchises for having top Dominican prospects.

Another fact.

We are talking about another 3-5 million dollars a year just to sign 2-3 of the more prominent Latin prospects.

Another fact.

If you don't buy a lottery ticket you can't win.

Another fact.

Fact: Playing the ;lottery on a regular basis is a good way to go broke.

[hoosiers]

A couple thoughts:

- It has been posted here and discussed ad nauseum in the past that the top of the international market is a relatively weak return. That is not news that $1M-$3M guys carry a higher risk profile, but let's be clear. That risk/return is still better than free agent major leaguers. A weaker return on these high $ players does not mean we should vacate that market.

- the better international returns are clearly at the bottom (under $250K) and middle of the market ($250k-$750k). I have seen NO EVIDENCE that the Os are investing disproportionately more than other teams at this higher return level of international prospects. If the Os did spend more internationally than other teams at the bottom and middle of the market, that would be excellent news, but I am highly skeptical. By appearances then, the Os generally match the spend of other teams at the bottom and possibly the middle of the market, but then cede the top of the market to other teams. How exactly are we supposed to get ahead in that scenario other than a claim that we will get a better return on our international $?

- the odd thing about those clamoring to the truth about the better return on the US draft need to explain to me then the benefits of our FO giving up high US draft picks for free agents (Ubaldo, Cruz) and selling off an average relief pitcher in Webb with a high US draft pick? Those posting above would seem to have a double standard here when it comes to supporting the current front office - let's avoid high $ international free agents, but sign US free agents with an historically weaker return while forfeiting high draft picks (the best return)!!! Comical. And, the surest way to end up with a weak farm team - our front office will not spend on high $ international prospects because of the poor return to get the third round talent cited in the article while at the same time forfeiting and trading US draft picks!

- Yet, our FO does decide to spend high six figures on international Cuban free agents at the bottom of that food chain. It would seem to me some perverted logic to spend that $ on mid-20 something weaker Cuban players while avoiding a reputed top 30 international prospect.

The top of the international market has a poor return. It is still a return better than signing the Jay Paytons and Garrett Atkins of the world. And, if a team is not going to spend at the top of the international signing bonus area, then show that we have invested much heavier than other teams in the segments of the international market with better returns. Or show that we have a better international scouting structure than other teams though most threads in the past five years on international scouting show us to be deficient in this area.

[Aristotelian]

Read again. I asked if signing Bundy was a bad decision at the time? The answer is no, because he was a talent. The Orioles are ignoring a segment of talent that most of our competitors are not. The more talent you get into your system the better your chances are. We aren't getting enough talent into the system. We shouldn't be ignoring a market where 2M would have gotten us 3-4 top 30 "consensus" top 30 Latin prospects. For those against it, it's like saying we should take a pass after the 1st round of the June draft because the odds are stacked against any of those picks becoming good ML players.

I take your point but we are looking at a list of the top 30 bonuses after the fact, not at the time, and asking how they did. It is a failed investment if they don't produce and if Bundy is an apples-to-apples comparison then he is a failure too. (That raises the other question, if the O's brought in some of these foreign guys, would our development system mess them up too???) It is true that baseball is a game of failure on so many levels, but you would think that more than three of the top 30 bonuses, at costs of multiple millions of dollars, would turn into major league ball players.

I'm not "for" or "against" having a presence in Latin America, just holding off on the rush to judgment that the O's are just being cheap or stupid.

[DrungoHazewood]

So far, Bundy has been a massive failure of a draft pick. I don't know how you could possibly argue otherwise.

Because he was picked in the slot where everyone thought he would go? And that he got hurt has no relevance to how good a pick he was? I see Matusz and Bundy as good picks. Hobgood was poor pick, he was a consensus overdraft. It's all about the process, and what you know at the time of the decision. Good process and eventually the results will follow, unless you get fired for bad luck. Which happens often.

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm not "for" or "against" having a presence in Latin America, just holding off on the rush to judgment that the O's are just being cheap or stupid.

I think it's resource-limited and risk averse. Which are probably two sides of the same coin. They don't have the budget available to sign a bunch of international talent, so they punt on it because it's lower efficiency. But it is an important talent source despite the relative inefficiency. Let's say the only way you can save for retirement with your company's 401k that only invests in stock from shady Uzbek companies, or you can save for retirement by putting the money in a coffee can right by the wood stove. They O's are putting the money in the coffee can.

[DrungoHazewood]

Most everyone else is doing both.

This seems to be a pretty common theme that's crossed multiple GMs and front office personnel. It appears that Angelos is very averse to paying for risky amateur talent. It was actually worse 10 years ago when there were no restrictions on international spending and the O's spent almost nothing and said it was because it was inefficient. So the Yanks were getting a 10% success rate out of their tens or hundreds of millions of dollars while the O's got near 0% success out of their $2.75. And the talent gap widened.

[Can_of_corn]

I think it's resource-limited and risk averse. Which are probably two sides of the same coin. They don't have the budget available to sign a bunch of international talent, so they punt on it because it's lower efficiency. But it is an important talent source despite the relative inefficiency. Let's say the only way you can save for retirement with your company's 401k that only invests in stock from shady Uzbek companies, or you can save for retirement by putting the money in a coffee can right by the wood stove. They O's are putting the money in the coffee can.

Except your kids (Angelos) knows where you hid the can and takes whatever is in there at the end of the year.

I have never seen evidence that money saved is money that is made available later.