It's July 2- Internationale!

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Going Underground said:

About the league::

 

For the second year in a row, the Orioles are again fielding two teams in the Dominican Summer League. Teams began play in that league on Saturday and the regular season will end on Aug. 23. The Orioles, Rangers, Yankees and Mets are the four other organizations fielding two DSL teams.

The players on the teams are from eight different countries. They represent the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Panama, Curacao, Guatemala, and the Netherlands.

The DSL is a short-season league and basically an entry level version into pro baseball for young international players.

 

 

http://www.masnsports.com/steve-melewski/2014/06/a-look-at-the-orioles-two-dominican-summer-league-teams.html

This article is from 2014.   We no longer have two teams.

[esmd]

*sigh*

I really try to give them the benefit of the doubt, I do.  They've earned some benefit by winning a lot of games over the last 5 years.
But this....this is just....inexplicable, dumbfounding, exasperating, etc.

I'll never understand how the Orioles are the only team in all of MLB not to delve into this pool, especially considering the relatively small investment required.

Just.....ugh.  SMH

[TradeAngelos]

39 minutes ago, esmd said:

*sigh*

I really try to give them the benefit of the doubt, I do.  They've earned some benefit by winning a lot of games over the last 5 years.
But this....this is just....inexplicable, dumbfounding, exasperating, etc.

I'll never understand how the Orioles are the only team in all of MLB not to delve into this pool, especially considering the relatively small investment required.

Just.....ugh.  SMH

Just imagine if instead of pocketing the 5.75m, they spent the 175% allowable and took it to 10m and just kept pounding the pavement for a long stretch. You think they would recoup the money spent in value on the field? I mean you literally would have to hit on only 1 out of a 100. Just one guy. 

But Pete doesn't see it that way, as shortsighted as they get. 

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, TradeAngelos said:

Just imagine if instead of pocketing the 5.75m, they spent the 175% allowable and took it to 10m and just kept pounding the pavement for a long stretch. You think they would recoup the money spent in value on the field? I mean you literally would have to hit on only 1 out of a 100. Just one guy. 

But Pete doesn't see it that way, as shortsighted as they get. 

I don't think it's this simplistic.    The team has an overall budget.    The international money we don't spend gets spent elsewhere.    It's a matter of where is the most efficient place to spend money.    The O's owners don't think the international market returns as much as other markets do.    That may be wrong, but it's not necessarily irrational not to spend there if you believe the money could be better spent elsewhere.    

[TradeAngelos]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don't think it's this simplistic.    The team has an overall budget.    The international money we don't spend gets spent elsewhere.    It's a matter of where is the most efficient place to spend money.    The O's owners don't think the international market returns as much as other markets do.    That may be wrong, but it's not necessarily irrational not to spend there if you believe the money could be better spent elsewhere.    

Yeah I am well aware that 10m gets wasted every single year on scrap heap dumpster dives, that could be shifted to the INT market. But a young kid from the Dominican can't be sold to the fans as a key piece that will help us win now, and help that bottom line out and put butts in the seats. 

29 teams believe otherwise as far as taking shots there. I think I will trust them over the one guy who "thinks" it isn't the best way to use funds. 

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, TradeAngelos said:

Yeah I am well aware that 10m gets wasted every single year on scrap heap dumpster dives, that could be shifted to the INT market. But a young kid from the Dominican can't be sold to the fans as a key piece that will help us win now, and help that bottom line out and put butts in the seats. 

29 teams believe otherwise as far as taking shots there. I think I will trust them over the one guy who "thinks" it isn't the best way to use funds. 

Look, I'm not saying the Orioles are correct.    I'm saying the reason they forego the international market isn't because they're cheap.    They believe there are better ways to spend the money.     And I don't think they do it because they believe that signing the Ynoas and Ashers of the world is going to increase ticket sales -- that seems highly implausible to me.

[Can_of_corn]

25 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don't think it's this simplistic.    The team has an overall budget.    The international money we don't spend gets spent elsewhere.    It's a matter of where is the most efficient place to spend money.    The O's owners don't think the international market returns as much as other markets do.    That may be wrong, but it's not necessarily irrational not to spend there if you believe the money could be better spent elsewhere.    

I would love to see the argument that spending 3/36.5 over three for Trumbo is a better use of resources than spending 5M a year on the international market and investing the rest into penny stocks.

[hoosiers]

32 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Look, I'm not saying the Orioles are correct.    I'm saying the reason they forego the international market isn't because they're cheap.    They believe there are better ways to spend the money.     And I don't think they do it because they believe that signing the Ynoas and Ashers of the world is going to increase ticket sales -- that seems highly implausible to me.

Honestly, an intern could put together a report in an afternoon showing the returns of various methods of player acquisition based on the research of others and reach conclusions contrary to your post.  The absolute worst return on player acquisition is in the US free agent market (something our owner has experienced first hand with the acquisitions of Cruz, Trumbo, Jimenez and Gallardo.  Obtaining international prospects below the $750k bonus target would yield among the best returns.  I would be fine if the Os played in that space, but it would be nice to see the Os dip their toes in the $1M-$2M targets once in a while.  Putting together a budget that excludes significant investment internationally is irresponsible.  For the life of me, given the research and the nuances of the markets, that one would put our owner as the chief decision maker here.  This stuff is GM 201 and it should fall squarely on the GM to allocate the resources appropriately and with ownership consent.

[Frobby]

24 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I would love to see the argument that spending 3/36.5 over three for Trumbo is a better use of resources than spending 5M a year on the international market and investing the rest into penny stocks.

I don't think you can really frame the argument around one particular player.    We know the free agent market returns about 1 WAR for every $8 mm spent.    So the question is, what does it cost on average to produce 1 WAR from players signed internationally at age 16?     And what does it cost to produce 1 WAR from players acquired in other ways?

[weams]

6 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

The absolute worst return on player acquisition is in the US free agent market

 

Do we know this? Is it possible that the return on International expenditure is worse in a macro sense? I personally do not know and do not have an intern.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don't think you can really frame the argument around one particular player.    We know the free agent market returns about 1 WAR for every $8 mm spent.    So the question is, what does it cost on average to produce 1 WAR from players signed internationally at age 16?     And what does it cost to produce 1 WAR from players acquired in other ways?

I would completely frame it the way I did.

Instead of spending 3/36.5 in the free agent market for a player producing at a replacement level pace we could have funded seven years of our international program.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, weams said:

Do we know this? Is it possible that the return on International expenditure is worse in a macro sense? I personally do not know and do not have an intern.

Give me 30 million to spend on 16 year olds I guarantee you I can get at least six years of replacement level DH/RF/1B production.

[weams]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don't think you can really frame the argument around one particular player.    We know the free agent market returns about 1 WAR for every $8 mm spent.    So the question is, what does it cost on average to produce 1 WAR from players signed internationally at age 16?     And what does it cost to produce 1 WAR from players acquired in other ways?

That is what I would want to see. Is it possible that the expenditure of slot monies, and not the actual expenditure of funds brings a better short-term reward? Do more AA 24-year-old pitchers return better than 16-year-old Dominicans?

[weams]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Give me 30 million to spend on 16 year olds I guarantee you I can get at least six years of replacement level DH/RF/1B production.

Over a seven year period of time, I assume?

[weams]

We were told there would be an international draft or a lockout also.