O's interested in Sano

[hoosiers]

The "wait-until-we're ready" philosophy, which makes a ton of sense when it comes to signing big-dollar big-league FAs and/or trading away excess pitching prospects for those couple of big bats that put us over the top, doesn't apply here. Even though we lack the optimal infrastructure at this point, as you correctly note, that shouldn't constrain us in evaluating this kid and determining how big an offer we should make. The size of the offer should have zero correlation with the quality of our infrastructure.

Can you elaborate on this? How do you know who to bid? And for how much?

If you do not have the infrastructure to make such an assessment and grade prospects relative to one another, .....?????

I just follow this from various articles in the media. People here imply they can pick up a copy of Baseball America and show up at an auction with a suitcase full of cash. Perhaps that is how these things go down, but I am skeptical of a lot of the opinions above.

[Jammer7]

Who said the Os can't? No one said any of this is a matter of money to the Orioles. It is a matter of the Os having been behind in developing an appropriate infrastructure to identify and build relationships with the kids.

I believe this infrastructure is coming into place and the Os will be ramping up the spending from a very low level. I hope the Os go out and spend $500k on one kid this year and expect us to be players for such top prospects very soon, but am somewhat ambivalent about doing that this year. The Os are coming from so far behind other organizations that as long as we "get there" eventually (in the next two or three years), I have the patience to wait.

This is right on for me. If, and only if, Dave and his scouts truly believe Sano is of the prosepct level worthy of a top 5-10 first round draft pick, then the money is worth spending. That would include a thorough scouting of this kid's talent and back ground. If not, then no. Things are building and you cannot just jump into the market.

[Sports Guy]

The point of Lucky Jim's post, mark, is that we could have wasted C.C. Sabathia magnitude dollars on Payton, Walker, Bradford, et. al. -- and it STILL wouldn't serve as any legitimate basis for determining whether $4 mil for Sano is a sensible offer. Thus his declaration of it being a false dichotomy, which it most surely is.

The point is that you when weighing the pros and cons and looking long term, it makes a lot more sense to spend 4 million on a top international talent than it does to spend the money that we have on garbage players.

[Lucky Jim]

The point is that you when weighing the pros and cons and looking long term, it makes a lot more sense to spend 4 million on a top international talent than it does to spend the money that we have on garbage players.

Of course it does. But - again - it's a false dichotomy. The fact that we've wasted money in the past isn't a reason to spend money in this particular way now. The two simply aren't related.

[murrayfan420]

I could understand the infrastructure argument if this were a lesser known player. Just going by the fact that he might get a $4 million signing bonus leads me to believe that he is one of the top prospects coming out of there.

If the “infrastructure” to scout the top player in the Dominican isn’t there yet, color me disappointed.

In principal I agree with what Sports Guy is saying, but I also agree that spending money on crappy veterans and international talent don’t necessarily go hand in hand.

I think the O’s need to continue taking chances on the Pie’s and Rich Hill’s of the world, and top international players who require a relatively modest investment when you consider how expensive US free agents are.

[snatch311]

Would you trade Danys Baez and eat his contract for a prospect of Sano's quality?

[LookinUp]

This is right on for me. If, and only if, Dave and his scouts truly believe Sano is of the prosepct level worthy of a top 5-10 first round draft pick, then the money is worth spending. That would include a thorough scouting of this kid's talent and back ground. If not, then no. Things are building and you cannot just jump into the market.

This is correct. The $4 million figure isn't likely just a random number being pulled out of a hat. It's far more likely that educated people are grading him and assigning some sort of value. If he's worth $4 million relative to other prospects, that's exactly what he should get.

Of course it does. But - again - it's a false dichotomy. The fact that we've wasted money in the past isn't a reason to spend money in this particular way now. The two simply aren't related.

You're really changing Sports Guy's point. If you operate under the assumption that the O's have finite resources, how and how much they spend in one place does affect other places.

The flip side is what people don't necessarily want to face. If the O's do sign a guy like Sano, that would likely affect what we give to other guys we draft, or who we sign in the FA market.

All SGs saying is that he'd rather sign a guy like Sano for $4 million than a guy like Wiggington. Just because he used names from the past doesn't make his point invalid.

[Lucky Jim]

This is correct. The $4 million figure isn't likely just a random number being pulled out of a hat. It's far more likely that educated people are grading him and assigning some sort of value. If he's worth $4 million relative to other prospects, that's exactly what he should get.

You're really changing Sports Guy's point. If you operate under the assumption that the O's have finite resources, how and how much they spend in one place does affect other places.

The flip side is what people don't necessarily want to face. If the O's do sign a guy like Sano, that would likely affect what we give to other guys we draft, or who we sign in the FA market.

All SGs saying is that he'd rather sign a guy like Sano for $4 million than a guy like Wiggington. Just because he used names from the past doesn't make his point invalid.

I don't think that's what his point is, exactly. Are you saying that you think that SG designates Wigginton a "garbage" player?

I'm not changing his point at all. The fact that you don't spend money on garbarge - which, by definition, is expensive w/ no upside - has no bearing on whether the upside/risk calculation on a 16 year old shortstop warrants a $4m dollar investment.

Of course it's a better expenditure than Payton (though we undersell Payton's value last year in the field), the question is more appropriately asked: is it a better expenditure than all of the other things that $4m can get you?

That you recognize SG has set up a false dichotomy is clear from your own post:

If the O's do sign a guy like Sano, that would likely affect what we give to other guys we draft, or who we sign in the FA market.

So, yeah, it's better than the worst signings of the past five years. But is it better than our other uses of that money? It really depends on how you see the risk.

[snatch311]

I don't think that's what his point is, exactly. Are you saying that you think that SG designates Wigginton a "garbage" player?

I'm not changing his point at all. The fact that you don't spend money on garbarge - which, by definition, is expensive w/ no upside - has no bearing on whether the upside/risk calculation on a 16 year old shortstop warrants a $4m dollar investment.

Of course it's a better expenditure than Payton (though we undersell Payton's value last year in the field), the question is more appropriately asked: is it a better expenditure than all of the other things that $4m can get you?

That you recognize SG has set up a false dichotomy is clear from your own post:

So, yeah, it's better than the worst signings of the past five years. But is it better than our other uses of that money? It really depends on how you see the risk.

Once you've made a mistake, an empty roster spot, Justin Turner and Brandon Waring is worth paying Ramon Hernandez's contract.

So, if it meant we'd spend the money on international talent, whether it be 20 guys for 200k or Miguel Sano for $4 million, I'd prefer that over having Danys Baez for the rest of the year.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that's what his point is, exactly. Are you saying that you think that SG designates Wigginton a "garbage" player?

I'm not changing his point at all. The fact that you don't spend money on garbarge - which, by definition, is expensive w/ no upside - has no bearing on whether the upside/risk calculation on a 16 year old shortstop warrants a $4m dollar investment.

Of course it's a better expenditure than Payton (though we undersell Payton's value last year in the field), the question is more appropriately asked: is it a better expenditure than all of the other things that $4m can get you?

That you recognize SG has set up a false dichotomy is clear from your own post:

So, yeah, it's better than the worst signings of the past five years. But is it better than our other uses of that money? It really depends on how you see the risk.

So tell me how you do it, LJ. You go through the most impressive law & econ training that exists in the world at U. Chicago and, based on that training as well as the obvious pre-existing procilivities, use the most logical framework possible to express what should seem to all the world as obvious statements of fact -- only to be countered with inane assertions that have zero connection to the laws of logic. And yet you have the patience to keep coming back for more.

[Mackus]

Once you've made a mistake, an empty roster spot, Justin Turner and Brandon Waring is worth paying Ramon Hernandez's contract.

So, if it meant we'd spend the money on international talent, whether it be 20 guys for 200k or Miguel Sano for $4 million, I'd prefer that over having Danys Baez for the rest of the year.

You are missing Lucky Jim's point, while simultaneously making an irrelevant argument.

The question: "Would you rather have Danyz Baez or Miguel Sano" is irrelevant. It means nothing. Its like asking if you prefer a firm mattress or diet soda?

Is Miguel Sano a worthwhile guy to spend a $4M signing bonus on?

That is a relevant question. And the justifications for it need to be based around what other international prospects / draft picks we'd sign for that money, what Sano's likely to become in his career, and things like that. Not does he have a chance to be better than an MLB free agent for $4M? Those players serve different purposes, are paid out of a different budget, and are completely irrelevant to Miguel Sano.

Compare the costs, risks, and benefits of Miguel Sano to other international FAs and potential draft picks as well as to our allotted budget for spending money on those players.

I hope we sign him, because I think he's a great talent and that if we sign him, its likely an indication that we are going to start spending a lot more money a lot more consistently on international players and draft picks. I don't think we'll sign the most expensive guy every year, but I think if we sign the best guy this year, we'd be more likely to continue spending some nice bonuses on guys we in the past haven't gone after.

[Sports Guy]

I don't think that's what his point is, exactly. Are you saying that you think that SG designates Wigginton a "garbage" player?

I'm not changing his point at all. The fact that you don't spend money on garbarge - which, by definition, is expensive w/ no upside - has no bearing on whether the upside/risk calculation on a 16 year old shortstop warrants a $4m dollar investment.

Of course it's a better expenditure than Payton (though we undersell Payton's value last year in the field), the question is more appropriately asked: is it a better expenditure than all of the other things that $4m can get you?

That you recognize SG has set up a false dichotomy is clear from your own post:

So, yeah, it's better than the worst signings of the past five years. But is it better than our other uses of that money? It really depends on how you see the risk.

You are looking at it the total wrong way.

The point is if you can spend your money on garbage, you can also take the risk on top young international talent.

To say they aren't connected when you look at it that way is completely wrong.

[Jammer7]

Hoosiers makes a lot of sense. However, having an infrastructure in place is not exactly necesary if Bernhardt(Is he still our Dominican guy?) & Stockstill have gotten extensive chances to see this kid play. We obviously have some infrastructure in place or we wouldn't have the Dominican prospects that we do have.

Yup, I agree which is why I said we should make a run at him if they deem him worthy. But, there are prospects down there that are lined up for certain teams long before it comes time for any bidding wars. The term "infrastructure" refers to a lot of things, but specifically in the higher end players it is all about networking and gaining influence and credibility in the region/market. Just getting a workout from the kid is really a big deal a lot of times.

I don't expect us to make a true run at the kid, unless we have an "in" with his handlers.

[murrayfan420]

You are missing Lucky Jim's point, while simultaneously making an irrelevant argument.

The question: "Would you rather have Danyz Baez or Miguel Sano" is irrelevant. It means nothing. Its like asking if you prefer a firm mattress or diet soda?

Is Miguel Sano a worthwhile guy to spend a $4M signing bonus on?

That is a relevant question. And the justifications for it need to be based around what other international prospects / draft picks we'd sign for that money, what Sano's likely to become in his career, and things like that. Not does he have a chance to be better than an MLB free agent for $4M? Those players serve different purposes, are paid out of a different budget, and are completely irrelevant to Miguel Sano.

Compare the costs, risks, and benefits of Miguel Sano to other international FAs and potential draft picks as well as to our allotted budget for spending money on those players.

I hope we sign him, because I think he's a great talent and that if we sign him, its likely an indication that we are going to start spending a lot more money a lot more consistently on international players and draft picks. I don't think we'll sign the most expensive guy every year, but I think if we sign the best guy this year, we'd be more likely to continue spending some nice bonuses on guys we in the past haven't gone after.

It's not irrelevant if you only have a certain amount of money to spend each year. You say they come from different budgets, but how do you know that?

I agree that the larger question should be is Sano worth a $4 million bonus. But you can't ignore the O's payroll as a variable in the ability/inability to offer top tier money for international free agents.

[Mackus]

You are looking at it the total wrong way.

The point is if you can spend your money on garbage, you can also take the risk on top young international talent.

To say they aren't connected when you look at it that way is completely wrong.

Its not completely wrong, IMO.

How much we spend on veteran FAs has nothing to do with how much we're willing to spend, and more importantly what type of players they are willing to spend it on, in the international FA market.

We didn't sign any mediocre veterans this offseason. Do you think that because we went with Adam Eaton instead of Tim Redding that we should have $3M more to spend on international FAs and/or draft picks? I don't think it is as directly cause/effect as you seem to think it is.

I don't think its a situation where MacPhail has $120M to spend on the team this year and can sprinkle that around wherever he wants, $60M on MLB players, $25M on team expenses, $10M on the draft, $6M on international signings, $2M on coachses, etc. I think he has different budgets for different areas that aren't related to each other area.

I don't think its reasonable to expect that because the payroll is $60M right now that we have $30M to spend on draft/Latin talent but that if the budget is $80M two years from now we'd only have $10M to spend that year.