It's July 2- Internationale!

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, weams said:

Over a seven year period of time, I assume?

Sure.  Book it!

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, weams said:

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

If you are in a race and no one else stops running I suggest you don't stop.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, hoosiers said:

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.

I don't know why you are saying "conclusions contrary to your post."    None of what I wrote is about what I personally believe.    It's about what the Orioles believe.    And they did have someone do a study several years ago; I discussed the issues with that in an earlier post.   

What strikes me is that there's a lot of assumption and egotism in the criticisms here.    For the most part, we form impressions of what's going on from second hand reports that we read as a hobby.    It's pretty presumptuous to think that the Orioles don't spend a lot more time and money considering and researching these issues than we do.     And again, I'm not saying I agree with their conclusions or their approach.     But I doubt they're relying on something an intern slapped together in an afternoon.    

[hoosiers]

7 hours ago, Frobby said:

So, my question was a good one. It shows that Andy and Klentak have moved on from whatever the situation was in 2011 or before, and are investing in international players.     The Orioles have not moved on, and I have to believe that's on Peter Angelos, not Dan Duquette.

I am trying to understand why one believes it is okay for AM to research the international market, share the results with PA and create a small, perhaps effective presence internationally, but that DD is not held to the same standard.  Apparently, AM has gone to his new owner and explained the righteousness of international spending in today's market to that guy, and we are to believe that guy is more reasonable and understanding of the benefits of international spending than PA when reviewing the same analysis?  

Is it really that difficult to commission a new study and take those results to PA and show him the benefits of international spending?  Are we to believe that DD has furnished all of the appropriate information to our owner and that it is PA who has acknowledged all of the benefits of spending internationally but has decided to pass?  

What upsets me the most is that DD found $ for FredF to go sign Reyes and Peralta but that we seem to have retreated since then.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, weams said:

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?

Would depend on how strongly you weigh simply making the majors.  

[weams]

1 hour 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. 

The most that the Orioles were permitted to spend this year was 5,85 million. Not ten. 

[weams]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Would depend on how strongly you weigh simply making the majors.  

I weigh that a whole bunch. 

[weams]

Just now, weams said:

I weigh that a whole bunch. 

850. Or as Frobby says. 1200. In the WORLD.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I don't know why you are saying "conclusions contrary to your post."    None of what I wrote is about what I personally believe.    It's about what the Orioles believe.    And they did have someone do a study several years ago; I discussed the issues with that in an earlier post.   

What strikes me is that there's a lot of assumption and egotism in the criticisms here.    For the most part, we form impressions of what's going on from second hand reports that we read as a hobby.    It's pretty presumptuous to think that the Orioles don't spend a lot more time and money considering and researching these issues than we do.     And again, I'm not saying I agree with their conclusions or their approach.     But I doubt they're relying on something an intern slapped together in an afternoon.    

When 30 groups have the same information and 29 go one way and one goes the other I'm going to need some solid evidence supporting the case of the one to not think they are incorrect.

You certainly can't look at the team or individual prospect ranking for support of the Orioles' process.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

I weigh that a whole bunch. 

So if a guy comes up and pitches 8 IP of 7 ERA ball that's a lot better than not making the majors at all?

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

When 30 groups have the same information and 29 go one way and one goes the other I'm going to need some solid evidence supporting the case of the one to not think they are incorrect.

You certainly can't look at the team or individual prospect ranking for support of the Orioles' process.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with them.    I'm just saying we shouldn't assume they haven't considered their options carefully. Frankly, the fact that 29 teams spent money in this market probably would tempt the Orioles to do it just to avoid the very criticism they're getting now.    

[Frobby]

13 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

I am trying to understand why one believes it is okay for AM to research the international market, share the results with PA and create a small, perhaps effective presence internationally, but that DD is not held to the same standard.  Apparently, AM has gone to his new owner and explained the righteousness of international spending in today's market to that guy, and we are to believe that guy is more reasonable and understanding of the benefits of international spending than PA when reviewing the same analysis?  

Is it really that difficult to commission a new study and take those results to PA and show him the benefits of international spending?  Are we to believe that DD has furnished all of the appropriate information to our owner and that it is PA who has acknowledged all of the benefits of spending internationally but has decided to pass?  

Who is to say whether the Orioles have done any further studies, or what they concluded?    It's anyone's guess.    And who knows what new information MacPhail is using in Philly?     He seems to be spending a lot more on international players there than the Orioles ever did during his administration.    

[hoosiers]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don't know why you are saying "conclusions contrary to your post."    None of what I wrote is about what I personally believe.    It's about what the Orioles believe.    And they did have someone do a study several years ago; I discussed the issues with that in an earlier post.   

What strikes me is that there's a lot of assumption and egotism in the criticisms here.    For the most part, we form impressions of what's going on from second hand reports that we read as a hobby.    It's pretty presumptuous to think that the Orioles don't spend a lot more time and money considering and researching these issues than we do.     And again, I'm not saying I agree with their conclusions or their approach.     But I doubt they're relying on something an intern slapped together in an afternoon.    

Not really sure whose ego is on the line here or why or what that bizarre comment is about?  I have barely 50 posts in the last six months and someone is mentioning ego?   WTH?  Let's stay on point, shall we?  I will agree that there are a lot of assumptions being made, but there is little else to do when the rest of baseball (including our former GM) is accessing the top and middle of the international market and the Os decide not to play there.  It begs simple questions lied - is our front office aware or not aware of the benefits of spending $ internationally?  If they are aware, have they made appropriate efforts to set aside budget $ and convince our owner of those same benefits?

I think DD's entire tenure has been a full speed ahead, forget the draft picks, we can overpay in trade with prospects, we can shed international slots, all in an effort to maximize the mlb payroll in the short term.  I don't think DD wants to allocate $5.85M in his budget to 16 and 17 year olds in LatAm who have three to five years or more of development time - when he could spend it on the major league team.  These are assumptions, of course, but this team and its budget have been run contrary to operating methods of most other teams - especially small market teams like San Diego and Minn and TB who spend appropriately internationally - since DD arrived.  What other teams have sold draft picks?  What other teams have consistently sold or traded their international slots?

I would wager the Os have spent less $ on amateur talent acquisition than all but perhaps three teams since DD arrived.  That is not how competitive teams are built and sustained.  IMO, that's on the GM especially when the payroll has been ramped up significantly in the same time period.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

Not really sure whose ego is on the line here or why or what that bizarre comment is about?  I have barely 50 posts in the last six months and someone is mentioning ego?   WTH?  Let's stay on point, shall we?  I will agree that there are a lot of assumptions being made, but there is little else to do when the rest of baseball (including our former GM) is accessing the top and middle of the international market and the Os decide not to play there.  It begs simple questions lied - is our front office aware or not aware of the benefits of spending $ internationally?  If they are aware, have they made appropriate efforts to set aside budget $ and convince our owner of those same benefits?

I think DD's entire tenure has been a full speed ahead, forget the draft picks, we can overpay in trade with prospects, we can shed international slots, all in an effort to maximize the mlb payroll in the short term.  I don't think DD wants to allocate $5.85M in his budget to 16 and 17 year olds in LatAm who have three to five years or more of development time - when he could spend it on the major league team.  These are assumptions, of course, but this team and its budget have been run contrary to operating methods of most other teams - especially small market teams like San Diego and Minn and TB who spend appropriately internationally - since DD arrived.  What other teams have sold draft picks?  What other teams have consistently sold or traded their international slots?

I would wager the Os have spent less $ on amateur talent acquisition than all but perhaps three teams since DD arrived.  That is not how competitive teams are built and sustained.  IMO, that's on the GM especially when the payroll has been ramped up significantly in the same time period.

What was DD's history on foreign amateur spending in Montreal and Boston?      He does not strike me as a guy to cavalierly ignore the upper end Latin American market. His whole sales job when he got here was that he had lots of international baseball experience and was going to look in every market for talent.    

[Coker]

8 hours ago, Frobby said:

Astros signed 26, the Padres 22.   

There's something I don't understand, though.    The Orioles have a Dominan Summer League team, that lists 36 players on its roster.     If the O's didn't sign most of these guys initially, then where did they come from?    Are they rejects from other teams?     Or is there some other way of acquiring Latin American players that doesn't show up on the list that BA compiles?

Okay, so the Orioles did sign most of these guys. Of the 36 members on the roster (including the 2 on the restricted list), only 6 players had been signed by a team prior to the Orioles - Bautista, Constante, Cruz, Diaz,  Dominguez, Mena; all pitchers.

 

The majority of the team comes from the Orioles 2014-15 and 2015-16 classes.In the 2015-16 classes, the O's had 20 total signings. 2014-15 had 16. The best I can make out is 22 players on the roster are from the O's signing classes in those years.