O's interested in Sano

[snatch311]

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.

I think I said that I didn't care if we thought it would be better to sign 20 different guys for $200k. My main point was that if we're worried about not having the money to spend, I'd get rid of Baez on the cheap to free up that money.

[snatch311]

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.

I have a $100 budget per week on groceries. I have a $40 budget on gas per week. I decided to bike to work this week. I can afford to get that Filet Mignon calling my name.

Also, didn't we trade Chad Bradford so we could free up money for amateur signings?

[Anonymous]

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.

No kidding, King Obvious. Name a single poster who disagrees.

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.

Now I get it, SG. If we had not spent the money on garbage on the past, then we should not offer Sano $4 million. But since we did spend the money on garbage in the past, then $4 million is precisely the optimal amount to offer Sano.

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.

Ah, I get it now. Whatever figure is being floated in the market at any given time for any given player is the right number – and any club that concludes, on the basis of its internal analysis, that this number is too high is obviously mistaken. In fact, it was a waste of time for the club even to have conducted any such analysis.

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

His contract has already been eaten, in the sense that we have already committed to pay him the full contract amount, barring a trade that recovers at least some portion of those dollars. Putting that aside, what the hell does your question mean and what conceivable relevance does it have to the entirely valid point that Lucky Jim has made that this is a false dichotomy? Do you think Lucky Jim implies anywhere that he values Baez more than Sano?

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

No it isn’t. We would have been better off trying to recoup dollars for Ramon rather than getting a 2B who will never crack our roster and a low-minor C prospect who also will never crack our roster.

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.

Another false dichotomy. Baez is a past-decision, sunk-cost situation which has no bearing on the max offer we should optimally set for Sano.

[Anonymous]

I think I said that I didn't care if we thought it would be better to sign 20 different guys for $200k. My main point was that if we're worried about not having the money to spend, I'd get rid of Baez on the cheap to free up that money.

So tell us, snatch, what does it mean to get rid of Baez on the cheap -- and how precisely does this process result in the freeing up of $4 million?

[snatch311]

You don't think someone would trade for Baez and his contract for the rest of the season?

I know you're trying very hard to sound intelligent, while using absolutely no common sense.

If you had the option of trading Baez to someone for a Grade C prospect, but they took the whole contract. Then, with that money, you reinvested the $4 million in amateur signings (however you want to allocate that), wouldn't that be a positive move?

[Anonymous]

I have a $100 budget per week on groceries. I have a $40 budget on gas per week. I decided to bike to work this week. I can afford to get that Filet Mignon calling my name.

Not if you've made that decision AFTER you've already paid for and used that gas.

[LookinUp]

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.

I apologize for forcing you to exist in the levels of the uneducated. Not that you'll consider what I'm saying worthy, but I'd like to expand on the discussion one more time.

What I think Sports Guy is articulating is a belief system when it comes to player acquisition. Generally speaking, SG would rather accept financial risk in the form of young players with upside over similarly expensive players with very little upside.

He likely feels that the O's could get players for at or near minimum salaries that can perform at or near the levels of guys that have previously been signed for relatively expensive contracts.

He also likely thinks that the O's do have a finite budget, and that decisions on one half of the organization do have an affect on decisions on the other half of the organization.

Cold this be a little simplistic? Sure. Do all of these considerations fit a perfect 1:1 relationship? No. However, I also believe that they don't happen in a vacuum.

So, it is my belief that nobody actually believes in the false dichotomy that Lucky Jim presented. He has painted SG into a position that SG certainly recognizes isn't as black and white as it may seem on a message board.

...thus my first post.

[snatch311]

Not if you've made that decision AFTER you've already paid for and used that gas.

It's contingent on the rumors that there is a lot of interest in people trading for Baez.

Like I said, the Bradford trade was (at least) speculated to free up money to go after Beal, Bundy, Drake, etc.

[Anonymous]

You don't think someone would trade for Baez and his contract for the rest of the season?

You're acting as if you'd raised this issue before, which you haven't. I think it's entirely possible that we could indeed make this trade. And your point is ...?

I know you're trying very hard to sound intelligent, while using absolutely no common sense.

That's pretty much my stock in trade. And your point is ...?

If you had the option of trading Baez to someone for a Grade C prospect, but they took the whole contract. Then, with that money, you reinvested the $4 million in amateur signings (however you want to allocate that), wouldn't that be a positive move?

No. It would be two moves, each of which should be evaluated on its own merits. Personally, I would forcefully decline the first and enthusiastically endorse the second (changing the word from "reinvest" to "invest" or "spend"). We don't need to unload the Baez contract in order to pull the trigger on $4 million in amateur signings. There's been no statement or action from anyone in the front office to suggest anything to the contrary.

[LookinUp]

Originally Posted by LookinUp

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.

Ah, I get it now. Whatever figure is being floated in the market at any given time for any given player is the right number – and any club that concludes, on the basis of its internal analysis, that this number is too high is obviously mistaken. In fact, it was a waste of time for the club even to have conducted any such analysis.

Did someone pee in your Cheerios this morning?

Where on earth did I say anything like what you're saying above? You're coming across as someone who thinks he's really smart. That's not a compliment. :rolleyestf:

[snatch311]

You're acting as if you'd raised this issue before, which you haven't. I think it's entirely possible that we could indeed make this trade. And your point is ...?

That's pretty much my stock in trade. And your point is ...?

No. It would be two moves, each of which should be evaluated on its own merits. Personally, I would forcefully decline the first and enthusiastically endorse the second (changing the word from "reinvest" to "invest" or "spend"). We don't need to unload the Baez contract in order to pull the trigger on $4 million in amateur signings. There's been no statement or action from anyone in the front office to suggest anything to the contrary.

We may not need to, but it would be a good justification.

A surplus in a budget is usually a good thing.

I understand what you guys are trying to say. The fact that we would be getting money back, doesn't mean we should go out and spend it willy nilly. Who thinks that we should? Do I think that getting guys like Drake, Hernandez, Bundy and Arrieta have hugely boosted our system? Were those all guys who dropped in the amateur draft because they were hard signs?

[Mackus]

What I think Sports Guy is articulating is a belief system when it comes to player acquisition. Generally speaking, SG would rather accept financial risk in the form of young players with upside over similarly expensive players with very little upside.

Right now those FA players have very little upside to us. Because that extra 1-2 wins they might get us over a season take us from 72 wins to 74. Or from 80 to 82. Those wins are meaningless.

But, ideally, in a couple seasons those wins will become meaningful. Going from 91 wins to 93 could mean making the playoffs or sitting home.

The point that I and I think LuckyJim are trying to make is that your farm system should be independent from your MLB team. Especially as far out as when you are signing 16-year old players. Lets start bringing in the same amount of good talent every year. As much as we can afford. But you don't stop bringing in that talent when you end up having to spend more money on your MLB team.

In a case-by-case basis you can certainly justify going over, even well over, what you usually will spend on international FAs, especially if your MLB squad is at a low payroll that year. But, the best plan in general is to have a very generous budget to spend on international signings and the draft and then going out and finding the best combination of talent (high- and low-cost) you can on that budget every season.

The goal is to ultimately be producing lots of talent consistently. You get there by having a very consistent farm system in terms of talent influx, not by spending a ton one year and then barely any the next. Find the most we can spend annually, and then spend that every year. If you end up just having extra money around and can justify spending it, go ahead, but having a consistent approach to buying young talent is a good ground to build from.

[snatch311]

I really don't even think this is a real debate.

I don't see any disagreement whatsoever that's not contrived.

[Anonymous]

What I think Sports Guy is articulating is a belief system when it comes to player acquisition. Generally speaking, SG would rather accept financial risk in the form of young players with upside over similarly expensive players with very little upside.

Neither Lucky Jim nor I nor any other poster I’ve ever seen on here would disagree with this belief system. Suggesting otherwise is a complete red herring.

He also likely thinks that the O's do have a finite budget, and that decisions on one half of the organization do have an affect on decisions on the other half of the organization.

Fair enough if stated in that manner, although a bit rich for my blood knowing that SG was quite willing to throw more than a fifth of a trillion dollars at a single free agent. Now THAT’s the kind of signing that will really throw you out of kilter when it comes to Sano-type signings. But however valid this point is that you are NOW raising, it has zero to do with Lucky Jim’s statement.

So, it is my belief that nobody actually believes in the false dichotomy that Lucky Jim presented. He has painted SG into a position that SG certainly recognizes isn't as black and white as it may seem on a message board.

...thus my first post.

You give SG a bit too much credit. His ability to assert the illogical with absolute complete confidence knows few bounds. That’s not to say SG is stupid. Quite to the contrary, as his raw brainpower is actually quite incredibly high. The fact that we have these two characteristics present in that same brain is one of the things that makes SG one of the truly most intriguing characters I’ve ever encountered, either on-line or in real-life.

[Anonymous]

I really don't even think this is a real debate.

I don't see any disagreement whatsoever that's not contrived.

Hey, I was just responding to what I saw in the earlier posts. But we do seem to be converging in language, which probably reflects less disagreement than initially met the eye. So I'm willing to call that a happy meeting of the minds, partner.