O's interested in Sano

[LookinUp]

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.

I agree, so far.

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.

This is where you start to lose. I'm sure that every team has allocated their budget to different buckets. They do that to attempt to guarantee that no major area is deprived in favor of other areas. This makes sense, in concept.

In the real world, lesser GMs get tempted. When you get tempted by someone like Teixeira or Sabathia, that certainly has an affect on other parts of the organization. Similarly, signing several guys to medium level contracts has an affect on the organization. To AM's credit, he seems less likely to do this.

When it comes to Sano, I actually think that the lower payroll this year might allow the Orioles to splurge within their budget.

This isn't a false dichotomy, it's natural to the ebb and flow of budgets. I work with them frequently...it really happens all of the time.

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.

Absolutely.

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.

Is anyone advocating this?

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.

You lost me on this last part. I'd rather save the money from one year and use it more wisely during the next year.

[LookinUp]

Originally Posted by LookinUp

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.

Read that again and show me where I suggested that you did. This was part of my overall explanation of the argument.

But however valid this point is that you are NOW raising, it has zero to do with Lucky Jim’s statement.

...

You give SG a bit too much credit. ...

My point is now and has always been that the entire argument is not as simple as the false dichotomy that Lucky Jim presented. Everything I've said (just about) has everything to do with what he said.

I do think one move affects another. I also think that SG thinks that one move affects another, but I don't think that either of us are naive enough to think that there's a perfect relationship between every move. To most, that goes without saying.

I think you're holding him to a typical message board standard. You know, the one where people make a statement and then get jumped on because they don't spend the extra 10 minutes elaborating on all of the context around that statement. It's not right or wrong, it's just the way these boards are.

Oh well. I think in the end that most of us are probably thinking around pretty similar lines w/ regards to Sano. SG would likely be more aggressive, because that's who he is.

[Lucky Jim]

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.

I find it amusing that I'm being accused of reducing or oversimplifying this discussion when all I did was point out that SG's "X > Y" approach to figuring out if the move is worth it was needlessly reductive.

I didn't simplify anything. If I can spend $2500/wk on cocaine, then I can also spend $1000/wk on gambling.

After all, it's more likely to be financially rewarding.

Read the bolded and italicized section above, and tell me again that what I've done is anything other than pointing out an overly simplified and misguided way of coming to decisions.

I agree that trading Baez and/or some other moderately high-priced veteran could free up cash for Sano. That's never been disputed. The point is that freeing up that cash doesn't make investing it in Sano wise. Even less compelling is the argument that the fact we've thrown money away before warrants gambling on this occasion.

This is SG's first post:

Need to pay up for this top international talent.

4 million spent on this type of upside is better than 9 million spent on Jay Payton.

Tell me again why determining that spending on a prospect is "better" than spending on Jay Payton tells us anything about whether we should actually bid millions on Sano. How does the conclusion that we "need to pay for this top international talent" derive from the fact that we once payed $9m on Jay Payton.

It seems like SG is demanding some kind of payroll penance from the O's. It's clearly a false dichotomy, and I wanted something more than rhetorical shorthand in support of his argument. You all have clarified your points to an extent. He hasn't.

[LookinUp]

I have no idea why I'm fighting Sports Guy's argument, but I will continue. Oh wait, it's because I got called out by Anonymous. Well, here I go again...

Originally Posted by Sports Guy

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.

Lucky Jim:

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

I find it amusing that I'm being accused of reducing or oversimplifying this discussion when all I did was point out that SG's "X > Y" approach to figuring out if the move is worth it was needlessly reductive.

...

Read the bolded and italicized section above, and tell me again that what I've done is anything other than pointing out an overly simplified and misguided way of coming to decisions.

...

The point is that freeing up that cash doesn't make investing it in Sano wise. Even less compelling is the argument that the fact we've thrown money away before warrants gambling on this occasion.

What you see as a direct correlation, I see as SG simply saying that if you have the mean's to do one, then you should have the means to do the other. Based off of his post below, I think it was pretty clearly implied. It was also implied that he favors going after the young upside guys more than the older guys.

You guys seem to want to reduce this discussion to legalisms. SG wasn't writing a court brief. He was just saying that he'd rather spend money on high upside prospects.

Sports Guy:

Need to pay up for this top international talent.

4 million spent on this type of upside is better than 9 million spent on Jay Payton.

Lucky Jim:

Tell me again why determining that spending on a prospect is "better" than spending on Jay Payton tells us anything about whether we should actually bid millions on Sano. How does the conclusion that we "need to pay for this top international talent" derive from the fact that we once payed $9m on Jay Payton.

SG is saying we should pay $$ for top international talent. He simply added Payton as a comparitor. By doing so, it's pretty clear to me that he sees it as more wise to spend money on a guy like Sano than on a no-upside vet like Payton.

I really don't get why this is so hard to understand.

Lucky Jim:

It seems like SG is demanding some kind of payroll penance from the O's. It's clearly a false dichotomy, and I wanted something more than rhetorical shorthand in support of his argument. You all have clarified your points to an extent. He hasn't.

Maybe you could simply ask him to clarify, rather than accusing him of false logic. I'll let SG defend himself moving forward. He's more than capable.

[Anonymous]

I have no idea why I'm fighting Sports Guy's argument, but I will continue. Oh wait, it's because I got called out by Anonymous. Well, here I go again...

What you see as a direct correlation, I see as SG simply saying that if you have the mean's to do one, then you should have the means to do the other. Based off of his post below, I think it was pretty clearly implied. It was also implied that he favors going after the young upside guys more than the older guys.

You guys seem to want to reduce this discussion to legalisms. SG wasn't writing a court brief. He was just saying that he'd rather spend money on high upside prospects.

SG is saying we should pay $$ for top international talent. He simply added Payton as a comparitor. By doing so, it's pretty clear to me that he sees it as more wise to spend money on a guy like Sano than on a no-upside vet like Payton.

I really don't get why this is so hard to understand.

Maybe you could simply ask him to clarify, rather than accusing him of false logic. I'll let SG defend himself moving forward. He's more than capable.

When you were clarifying your own statements, snatch, you had me swooning. Now that you've stepped into SG territory, you're really in the briar patch, as every single statement of SG's to which you refer is absolutely inane.

- Per SG via Snatch, if we have the means to pay Baez, we have the means to pay Sano.

No kidding. But we also have the means to pay Sano even if we hadn't paid Baez or Bradford or Walker or Williamson or Payton.

- SG would rather spend $ on high upside prospects than on mediocre and below-average vets for whom we have historically vastly overpaid.

And this is SG's proprietary belief system, perhaps one that he should have patented? Give me a break. If there is one statement for which you might find 99.9% agreement, this would be the one.

- SG is saying that we should spend $ for top international talent.

Give me a break, once again. How many posters have started a thread lately asserting that we should NOT spend $ for top international talent? It's comical to suggest that this is somehow SG's belief system.

- SG sees it as more wise to spend money on a guy like Sano than on Payton.

Boy, you make SG sound like a freaking genius. Is there a single poster who would take the counter side of this statement? If not, what value is there in SG, or you, pointing out the obvious?

So here we have a series of inane SG statements, reported by you as his belief system, serving as the basis for the SG assertion that $4 mil -- not $4.1 mil and not $3.9 mil and not any other number and not a decision to offer nothing in this case, but rather to allocate to other prospects or other developmental needs -- is the precise amount that we should optimally extend to Sano. I know that this does not reflect YOUR belief system. But this is what Lucky Jim was dealing with when he proclaimed that there was a false dichotomy being presented. The irony here is that I think your underlying philosophy is not far off from mine nor that of Lucky Jim. But he was exactly right in what he said.

[snatch311]

When you were clarifying your own statements, snatch, you had me swooning. Now that you've stepped into SG territory, you're really in the briar patch, as every single statement of SG's to which you refer is absolutely inane.

- Per SG via Snatch, if we have the means to pay Baez, we have the means to pay Sano.

No kidding. But we also have the means to pay Sano even if we hadn't paid Baez or Bradford or Walker or Williamson or Payton.

- SG would rather spend $ on high upside prospects than on mediocre and below-average vets for whom we have historically vastly overpaid.

And this is SG's proprietary belief system, perhaps one that he should have patented? Give me a break. If there is one statement for which you might find 99.9% agreement, this would be the one.

- SG is saying that we should spend $ for top international talent.

Give me a break, once again. How many posters have started a thread lately asserting that we should NOT spend $ for top international talent? It's comical to suggest that this is somehow SG's belief system.

- SG sees it as more wise to spend money on a guy like Sano than on Payton.

Boy, you make SG sound like a freaking genius. Is there a single poster who would take the counter side of this statement? If not, what value is there in SG, or you, pointing out the obvious?

So here we have a series of inane SG statements, reported by you as his belief system, serving as the basis for the SG assertion that $4 mil -- not $4.1 mil and not $3.9 mil and not any other number and not a decision to offer nothing in this case, but rather to allocate to other prospects or other developmental needs -- is the precise amount that we should optimally extend to Sano. I know that this does not reflect YOUR belief system. But this is what Lucky Jim was dealing with when he proclaimed that there was a false dichotomy being presented. The irony here is that I think your underlying philosophy is not far off from mine nor that of Lucky Jim. But he was exactly right in what he said.

That's not what I said. I said that if we weren't paying Baez, we could spend the money we're paying Baez on int'l/amateur signings.

[LookinUp]

If you think my statements are inane, maybe now you can realize why I think your criticism of what SG was saying was so ridiculous. They are inane. Everyone agrees. Yet, you and LJ read into them and gave them more meaning that he intended. That's my point and it has been since my first response saying this:

...

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.

...

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.

By the way...where did SG say anything about $4.0 being the perfect amount of money? Where did he compare it to $3.9 or $4.1? He was just making an inane generalized comment about going after top players. He threw in $4.0 to generally say it was worth it. That's all. No hidden meaning or false dichotomy. You're the ones forcing an argument here.

[Flosman]

When you were clarifying your own statements, snatch, you had me swooning. Now that you've stepped into SG territory, you're really in the briar patch, as every single statement of SG's to which you refer is absolutely inane.

- Per SG via Snatch, if we have the means to pay Baez, we have the means to pay Sano.

No kidding. But we also have the means to pay Sano even if we hadn't paid Baez or Bradford or Walker or Williamson or Payton.

- SG would rather spend $ on high upside prospects than on mediocre and below-average vets for whom we have historically vastly overpaid.

And this is SG's proprietary belief system, perhaps one that he should have patented? Give me a break. If there is one statement for which you might find 99.9% agreement, this would be the one.

- SG is saying that we should spend $ for top international talent.

Give me a break, once again. How many posters have started a thread lately asserting that we should NOT spend $ for top international talent? It's comical to suggest that this is somehow SG's belief system.

- SG sees it as more wise to spend money on a guy like Sano than on Payton.

Boy, you make SG sound like a freaking genius. Is there a single poster who would take the counter side of this statement? If not, what value is there in SG, or you, pointing out the obvious?

So here we have a series of inane SG statements, reported by you as his belief system, serving as the basis for the SG assertion that $4 mil -- not $4.1 mil and not $3.9 mil and not any other number and not a decision to offer nothing in this case, but rather to allocate to other prospects or other developmental needs -- is the precise amount that we should optimally extend to Sano. I know that this does not reflect YOUR belief system. But this is what Lucky Jim was dealing with when he proclaimed that there was a false dichotomy being presented. The irony here is that I think your underlying philosophy is not far off from mine nor that of Lucky Jim. But he was exactly right in what he said.

I have not commented on this yet but I think most of the problem some have with SGs stance is the common problem that occurs when dealing with SGs black and white world. Heck I don't know if Sano is the guy to break the bank on and it is very doubtful any of us posters know the answer either. He obviously fills a position of need in our system, IF the evaluating team thinks he is likely to actually become a real ML contributor. I do not think it is a given that the scouts think this about him. I mean were are the Sox and Yankees in this process? If he were Arod Jr I bet they would be all over this guy. It does sound like we are kicking the tires and we actually might make an offer to the kid. However it has to be in the range of fair value for a kid that is no more likely to be a MLer than any other guy taken in the first 5 rounds of the draft. If he is really a 1st round talent and he is really a long term SS I think we should pay a reasonable premium to try to get him, but I have no idea how to determine what that would be. The truth is I doubt there are 10 posters on here that have that sort of data.

On an aside about the signing of the Paytons of the world no one with any sense would argue that in the position the O's were in we should have been offering above market multi-year deals to a guy like Payton. However the Vet signings do have a place in constructing a winning team. They buy time and fill holes that the system can't currently fill. But the commitment must be low in terms of Money and years. Also the FO should not make it out that they signed anybody that really is a difference maker. You usually get a guy that is not quite has good has he once was and on a very good team he can do enough to help if you use him in the correct situations but he is not a difference maker.

[olehippi]

Personally, I think it should be mandatory that MLB teams be prevented from signing any player under the age of 18 unless they have graduated high school. This would include all foreign/non-draft players also.

And the idea of giving any player this kind of money ($4M) should be outlawed. MLB has to put the clamps on this kind of crap....starting with caps on signing bonuses.

[Anonymous]

That's not what I said. I said that if we weren't paying Baez, we could spend the money we're paying Baez on int'l/amateur signings.

Yes, we could. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. What’s the point of saying this?

But what you’re omitting is equally valid, and also something that everybody knows. Even though we ARE paying Baez, we STILL can spend this kind of money on international and other amateur signings.

[Old#5fan]

The only problem with that is that he's a SS, not a pitcher. Still, $4 million for a 16 year-old is an awful lot of money.

I agree that is a lot of money for a kid that age but they signed Rowell who was only a year older and I am sure they paid him a lot of money as well, and maybe not justifiably. If this kid is another potential AROD maybe he in fact, is worth the gamble?:scratchchinhmm:

[snatch311]

Yes, we could. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. What’s the point of saying this?

But what you’re omitting is equally valid, and also something that everybody knows. Even though we ARE paying Baez, we STILL can spend this kind of money on international and other amateur signings.

Ok, then I will rephrase it.

It would be justifiable and favorable to the current situation, to trade Baez and recoup whatever money possible, in order to use that money for Amateur signings.

[Flosman]

Personally, I think it should be mandatory that MLB teams be prevented from signing any player under the age of 18 unless they have graduated high school. This would include all foreign/non-draft players also.

And the idea of giving any player this kind of money ($4M) should be outlawed. MLB has to put the clamps on this kind of crap....starting with caps on signing bonuses.

I have never understood why the international players are not put in the draft pool with all of the other players.

[Anonymous]

My apologies, BTW, in getting some statements by snatch and LookinUp mixed up. Sorry guys.

[Sports Guy]

This is a funny thread...LJ and Anon have no clue as to what I am saying.

Plain and simple...Why on earth would you sit there and complain about giving a top international talent 4 million yet turn around and may middling FAs that much or more?

It doesn't make sense.

This isn't a, well you gave one the money, so you should do the same thing to someone else. I mean, that's true to a point but that's not my point.

It just makes no sense to shut the door on giving big money to an unproven player who could pay huge dividends when you are fine with paying big money to a guy who isn't going to give you much of anything.

The more of these players that we don't sign, the harder it ends up being for us to compete long term.

We don't ever get the MCAb, Pujols, Vlad type guys...Why? Because we don't have a big presence in International signings.