O's Getting Serious About Sano?

[Lucky Jim]

I had a just about identical topic to this on the minor league boards, where this whole topic should be in the first place. I said had because it got locked because of arguments like this one.

I think Sano signs with us, been saying it for a while now.

Well, thanks for letting us know. We'll be sure to follow your protocol from here on out.

Of course, Sano isn't in our minor leagues, and this is really a philosophical/theoretical discussion of the Orioles presence on the international market. So maybe we'll have to agree to disagree?

[allstar1579]

Well, thanks for letting us know. We'll be sure to follow your protocol from here on out.

Of course, Sano isn't in our minor leagues, and this is really a philosophical/theoretical discussion of the Orioles presence on the international market. So maybe we'll have to agree to disagree?

Yeah, technically I think it's closer to belonging in the Amateur forum where we usually discuss prospects that have or haven't yet been acquired, but I see where it fits into general Orioles talk as it has to do with international signings and that is something the O's should be doing more of.

Regardless, I think they should take the shot since they (apparently) are going to save a boatload on their Rule 4 budget this year.

[Lucky Jim]

Yeah, technically I think it's closer to belonging in the Amateur forum where we usually discuss prospects that have or haven't yet been acquired, but I see where it fits into general Orioles talk as it has to do with international signings and that is something the O's should be doing more of.

Regardless, I think they should take the shot since they (apparently) are going to save a boatload on their Rule 4 budget this year.

Yeah - it doesn't fit specifically within any of forums. It's sort-of an anomalous thing, and it involves institutional concerns that are obviously more "anything Orioles" than it is about our minor leagues.

[hoosiers]

I don't care if we sign this kid or not - especially since I do not believe there is strong value in these mega-$ signings as good as this kid sounds.

I hope there is a back up plan if we lose the bidding and that we are still intent on spending $1+M or more on quality international free agent talent.

[allstar1579]

Yeah - it doesn't fit specifically within any of forums. It's sort-of an anomalous thing, and it involves institutional concerns that are obviously more "anything Orioles" than it is about our minor leagues.

Gotta love the "gray area" debates.

On Sano: I think the kid is the real deal. Bone graphs show he is ACTUALLY 16, and he's got the tools now that ARod had as an 18 year old.

When you hear that he might be a hybrid between Hanley Ramirez and Albert Pujols, no matter how annoying comps are, you have to take notice. Thing is, if he really is that good, the Yanks will pay $8mil and steal him.

[Lucky Jim]

I don't care if we sign this kid or not - especially since I do not believe there is strong value in these mega-$ signings as good as this kid sounds.

I hope there is a back up plan if we lose the bidding and that we are still intent on spending $1+M or more on quality international free agent talent.

This is spot-on. Toss aside the "symbolic" value of the signing, and the important thing is that we spend some cash on some prospects down there.

I'm not even convinced you can tell who's worth that much money at 16. So, so young. (Note: this doesn't mean I think we shouldn't do it if we feel we can.)

[Lucky Jim]

Gotta love the "gray area" debates.

On Sano: I think the kid is the real deal. Bone graphs show he is ACTUALLY 16, and he's got the tools now that ARod had as an 18 year old.

When you hear that he might be a hybrid between Hanley Ramirez and Albert Pujols, no matter how annoying comps are, you have to take notice. Thing is, if he really is that good, the Yanks will pay $8mil and steal him.

I think the key here is that the Hanley + Albert thing is all projection. There's no way of knowing "if he really is" that - and so the threat of the Yankees stepping in like that is lessened.

[Moose Milligan]

Once again, you're showing yourself to be wholly one-dimensional in your appreciation. Single- if not simple-minded about this.

There are two vectors at work: risk and cost. The lower the cost, the more risk you can take on.

Thus, $4m international FA signings are wildly different than $200m FA signings.

This....

$200 million isn't the same as $5 million.

As I've stated, $5 million is a lot for a kid, but it's basically like adding another first rounder, and I'd rather have him than Ty Wigginton II this offseason.

And this...win the thread.

If other teams are offering 3 and 4 million, I'd be cool with offering 5. Its the type of talent you take a risk on and as BaltimoreFan has correctly stated, it's like getting an extra first round pick.

[allstar1579]

I think the key here is that the Hanley + Albert thing is all projection. There's no way of knowing "if he really is" that - and so the threat of the Yankees stepping in like that is lessened.

Yeah, but you know how I deal in projection. When you see a 16 year old kid that is in the same place as ARod was at 18 you perk up a bit. It's hard to say without getting to see him myself yet, but if the reports coming out are true, he's worth $5-6 mil easy. I mean come on, we are paying Jamie Walker $4 mil to sit around and scratch his butt for one season. Think of it this way, if we trade Baez, we just paid for 6 years at least of him, and if he doesn't work out, we aren't out anything because we would have been paying Baez that money if we kept him.

[carolinaoriole]

I hate dragging it up again, but we were the lowest bid for Teixeira's services regardless on whether he wanted to play here or not.

And I thank god for that every day.

I do not want people of that low of moral fiber on my team.

[Lucky Jim]

Yeah, but you know how I deal in projection. When you see a 16 year old kid that is in the same place as ARod was at 18 you perk up a bit. It's hard to say without getting to see him myself yet, but if the reports coming out are true, he's worth $5-6 mil easy. I mean come on, we are paying Jamie Walker $4 mil to sit around and scratch his butt for one season. Think of it this way, if we trade Baez, we just paid for 6 years at least of him, and if he doesn't work out, we aren't out anything because we would have been paying Baez that money if we kept him.

That's my point, though. You don't actually see a kid in "the same place" as A-Rod. You see a kid, and you compare him to A-Rod (acknowledging that it's been 17 years since A-Rod was 18) and then come to a conclusion.

It's highly unlikely that all teams come to that same conclusion factoring the subjective components.

[SrMeowMeow]

The idea of a team saying 'well, we'll go 3M but not 4M' fascinates me. Can you really put that precise a price on these kinds of things? I guess it's just done by comparison - this player got 2.6M, and I like this guy a bit more, but not as much as that other guy who got 3.5M...

It really is like adding a first rounder. And the 5M cost is factored in! It's like teams are flat-out turning down first round picks because they don't have the money. It's very strange, and I hope we get him.

[allstar1579]

That's my point, though. You don't actually see a kid in "the same place" as A-Rod. You see a kid, and you compare him to A-Rod (acknowledging that it's been 17 years since A-Rod was 18) and then come to a conclusion.

It's highly unlikely that all teams come to that same conclusion factoring the subjective components.

I get what you are saying, in the end it's really going to be close to impossible to draw anything conclusive because he is in another country, and short of flying there and watching him work out, it's hard to get a good read. I thought one of the guys saying this was a scout who saw Pujols that young though, if you had seen ARod at 18 with your own eyes, then you could make that comparison if you were scouting him you know?

It's hard to really say, because like you said, when you compare him to another player you are always going to say, he compares to, but isn't guaranteed to be, but it's like this with any prospect. You could look at Strasburg and say, oh he compares to a mix of Roger Clemens and Mark Prior, but until you get enough of a consensus on that, you are going to take it with a grain of salt, like the Sano thing.

I would love to get eyes on him and tell you for sure, but as best as I can tell, they are heaping some praise on this kid that generally doesn't come unwarranted. They didn't say oh here's the next Tejada, they went right for the top of the list when they were making comparisons. And these are unbiased varying scouts who stand to make no money on this, not just like his agent or some guys in the Dominican hoping for finder's fees.

When you draft any amateur player it is because of the potential that guy has to be what you project him to be. It's no different to sign an international guy based on that same projection.

[Lucky Jim]

I get what you are saying, in the end it's really going to be close to impossible to draw anything conclusive because he is in another country, and short of flying there and watching him work out, it's hard to get a good read. 1. I thought one of the guys saying this was a scout who saw Pujols that young though, if 2. you had seen ARod at 18 with your own eyes, then you could make that comparison if you were scouting him you know?

It's hard to really say, because like you said, when you compare him to another player you are always going to say, he compares to, but isn't guaranteed to be, but it's like this with any prospect. You could look at Strasburg and say, oh he compares to a mix of Roger Clemens and Mark Prior, but until you get enough of a consensus on that, you are going to take it with a grain of salt, like the Sano thing.

I would love to get eyes on him and tell you for sure, but as best as I can tell, they are heaping some praise on this kid that generally doesn't come unwarranted. They didn't say oh here's the next Tejada, they went right for the top of the list when they were making comparisons. And these are unbiased varying scouts who stand to make no money on this, not just like his agent or some guys in the Dominican hoping for finder's fees.

When you draft any amateur player it is because of the potential that guy has to be what you project him to be. It's no different to sign an international guy based on that same projection.

1. That would be strange, as Pujols was pretty obscure (small midwest HS and Community College, no)?

2. My point isn't you can't make the comparison. It's that you can't reliably make that comparison. I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to scouts. I'm saying that it's virtually impossible to make those kind of comparisons across time.

Finally, I'm not saying he's worth it or not. I'm drawing a line between spending money on Free Agents willy-nilly (like the Yanks do) and spending an enormous amount on a prospect whose value - even with something like consensus - is largely based on projection (which is not empirical, and not falsifiable). I'm also not saying that the Yanks won't do it. Rather, that in a situation like this, the value is largely a blank being filled in by scouts. The more territory that's being filled in by scouts, the more likely you are to have teams back off when they're scouts are less optimistic about the projection.

It's wildly different that a Strassburgian situation, where there's no need for projection.

[allstar1579]

1. That would be strange, as Pujols was pretty obscure (small midwest HS and Community College, no)?

2. My point isn't you can't make the comparison. It's that you can't reliably make that comparison. I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to scouts. I'm saying that it's virtually impossible to make those kind of comparisons across time.

Finally, I'm not saying he's worth it or not. I'm drawing a line between spending money on Free Agents willy-nilly (like the Yanks do) and spending an enormous amount on a prospect whose value - even with something like consensus - is largely based on projection (which is not empirical, and not falsifiable). I'm also not saying that the Yanks won't do it. Rather, that in a situation like this, the value is largely a blank being filled in by scouts. The more territory that's being filled in by scouts, the more likely you are to have teams back off when they're scouts are less optimistic about the projection.

It's wildly different that a Strassburgian situation, where there's no need for projection.

Yeah, maybe it wasn't Pujols, it was a big name though, I do remember that much.

Ok I'll give you that, Strasburg is a once in a decade talent, but what about guys like Ackley, Green, Matzek and Wheeler? Would you not pay them $3-5 mil bonuses because drafting them is all projection as well.

Scouts seem pretty optimistic about this one, as they usually are once or twice a year, Inoa was last year's. But wouldn't you rather spend $4 mil on a chance to have a superstar SS, than $4 on a reliever or bench player you could easily replace within your system for one year? Especially when you aren't going to compete that year anyway?