Jump to content

O's Getting Serious About Sano?


Lucky Jim

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 350
  • Created
  • Last Reply
You're hurting my brain, BFan. Is there a single poster, or a single member of the team's front office, who favors or is contemplating the idea of bringing in a 33 YO reliever this winter as an alternative to signing Sano? The answer, obviously, is no ... and the argument therefore is just silly. The question of whether to offer Sano $5 mil or higher or lower should be made based on other factors. If he's good enough to warrant such an offer, by all means let's go after him ... but not because we signed Walker, Bradford, Baez, and Williamson.

My point was that we spent $6 million on Ty Wigginton last winter when he wasn't even really needed at all, but the move was considered a "cheap" addition. The Orioles can more than afford to buy Sano, but the issue is whether you want to take the "risk" and possibly waste the money on an unproven prospect. My personal analogy is that we're willing to dish out comparable money on way over the hill old backups, so why not pony up for a possible cornerstone?

I don't think his talent is in question whatsoever, it's whether or not ANY 15/16 year old deserves that kind of money, and the risks associated.

There are a few of these Hispanic prospects every single year that the scouts are virtually unanimously slobbering over, and Sano is the chosen player of 2009. Teams like Oakland and Minnesota consistently target these guys because they get another chance, outside of the draft where they also binge, to grab a potential superstar for a comparatively cheap price. The Yankees could throw down $10 million and not break a sweat, but why even bother when they can just grab the biggest FA on the market this winter? The O's need to start making moves like grabbing Sano to further their philosophy of building a farm.

I realize that the cliche is "buy the bats," but if Sano pans out, then we would likely never get a sniff at him on the open market, and would be forced to "buy" the inferior bat. JTrea will say that history indicates that MacPhail wouldn't spend on Sano, others may think that the team he signs with will lock him up before he's on the market anyway, and I believe that we would lose in a bidding war for a true star like Sano. There are many reasons to believe that this is our only chance to get a guy like this, so all that being said, if we have a shot at him right now, then the "risk" is most definitely justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus teams are far more likely to have differing or disparate ideas of the likelihood of having a superstar SS (and he's more likely to be a 3B anyway), and on top of that, differing or disparate ideas of just what kind of star he might be (is he Pujols? Miguel Cabrera? Or Tejada?)

Because the blanks that need to be filled in will be filled in - almost necessarily - by different individuals w/ different valuations, the risk of someone swooping into snatch him with an outlandish bid are somewhat minimized.

Couldn't the subjectivity that comes with signing a 16 year old full of projection increase the chances of an outlandish bid being made? If you've got 32 teams scouting the kid all with very different opinions about his ability, at least one of them will say that Sano is the tits and worth crazy money. What's "outlandish" for one team is reasonable for another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what we fans know about this guy, which isn't much, how much would you offer him? I would go straight to $6 mill. Once in a while you have to take a chance. 6 mill isn't that much in the grand scheme of sports these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to his age, BP's Kiley McDaniel wrote this about Sano:

As with many high-profile Dominicans, there are incessant whispers about his age. There is no evidence to suggest that he isn't 16, and one international scouting director commented, "Everyone thought Shaq and LeBron looked older too. It's a combination of a rare talent and jealous teams." Sano's agent went so far as to get a DNA bone graft, which is becoming very common for top prospects. The results have a 12-month window, and say that Sano is 16 or 17; nothing to see here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't dispute what you are saying, but I think there's a strong difference between the draft and the international signing situation. The difference, at least to me, is the draft is like the kiddy pool where everyone has no problem swimming compared to the deep part of the atlantic ocean as the foreign scouting department. It just seems to me as though every season there's another one of these can't miss stars, and every year I have no idea who that player was 5 weeks later. The process from the draft to the majors is a whole lot more streamlined in my opinion. There's no age questions, there's plenty of scouting tape available. There's plenty of information to analyze. With the international aspect -- there's more chances being taken, which is why I think you see teams not spending the $5 million on these players.

I think I get what you are saying, people pony up all that money and then you don't get any kind of immediate return on investment. They usually don't head straight for top prospects lists, they RARELY make the majors anytime soon. These guys will need to go "season" for a while in the minors, and you might not hear about them for a couple years, but the end reward can be worth it, if not for the "dipping the toe into the market" effect, which will net future players, but a good percentage of all-star players come from other countries, so we need to start getting in on these guys somehow.

I don't know that there is too much more to worry about than the rule 4 draft, it's just a question of amount of resources allocated, and a matter of getting eyes on these kids. Talent is talent, and they sure have it in places like the Dominican, but when it's not in your backyard it takes more effort to scout. It's only a matter of time before other teams expand into these foreign scouting ventures and you'll see more people spending as result, so I just think we should take advantage while we only have to fight a handful of teams for the talent and not all of MLB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laughed out loud with this one... I mean, seriously? Let me guess, if he were a pitcher -- he'd have Roy Halladay stuff, too.

Regarding the actual topic at hand, I'd sign him -- but I'm not in favor of just dishing out money with the logic of it's only 5 million that doesn't go to Wiggington or the logic of that nature. With situations like these, it speaks volumes to me that the larger revenue teams like the Yankees and Red Sox don't just sign up every single one of these players. There's a reason why these players aren't getting the seemingly small signing bonuses and what not that they apparently desire. I don't know what it is, but it goes beyond the simple price tag -- there's got to be something there. I feel like every season we have a discussion about one of these 'can't miss' players that come through the DR and every year they kind of fade into obscurity. He's a 16 year old kid, 6 years away from the bigs conservatively. Dishing out 5 million for that just seems weird to me. What kind of talent is he playing against in the Dominican Republic? Compared to this, Strasburgh should get every penny of his 50 million. Talk about a guy who hasn't done anything to prove something. Not an olympic team, not international competition -- nothing. Just an agent hyping him up to be the second coming of sliced bread. Forgive me, but this to me looks like it's hype hype hype.

I'm sorry, but there are many players who have come out of Latin American countries and panned out. The most successful in the majors were not always the most highly touted, but you must know that countries like the DR, Venezuela, and Cuba produce great talent, with players being signed at young ages. The statement that these guys get hyped up and fade into obscurity is not accurate. Just off the top of my head, I can think of Ivan Rodriguez, Felix Hernandez, Bernie Williams,

The Yankees and Red Sox don't dish out the money because developing these kids for impact six years down the road isn't worth the effort when you can just buy the best available 3B/SS when he hits the market anyway. That being said, New York is still usually involved somehow with all of these prospects, as they are reportedly interested in Sano, and I can recall them making serious offers for Felix Hernandez and Michel Inoa among others.

These prospects aren't earning $5 million because their agent hypes them, that's an absurd notion; scouts almost unanimously declare these "can't miss" kids to be legitimate, or else clubs wouldn't be willing to give huge bonuses to these guys every year. Sano has been scouted, and coveted, by nearly every MLB team; being 16 and not facing Brigham Young like Strasburg isn't his fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laughed out loud with this one... I mean, seriously? Let me guess, if he were a pitcher -- he'd have Roy Halladay stuff, too.

Regarding the actual topic at hand, I'd sign him -- but I'm not in favor of just dishing out money with the logic of it's only 5 million that doesn't go to Wiggington or the logic of that nature. With situations like these, it speaks volumes to me that the larger revenue teams like the Yankees and Red Sox don't just sign up every single one of these players. There's a reason why these players aren't getting the seemingly small signing bonuses and what not that they apparently desire. I don't know what it is, but it goes beyond the simple price tag -- there's got to be something there. I feel like every season we have a discussion about one of these 'can't miss' players that come through the DR and every year they kind of fade into obscurity. He's a 16 year old kid, 6 years away from the bigs conservatively. Dishing out 5 million for that just seems weird to me. What kind of talent is he playing against in the Dominican Republic? Compared to this, Strasburgh should get every penny of his 50 million. Talk about a guy who hasn't done anything to prove something. Not an olympic team, not international competition -- nothing. Just an agent hyping him up to be the second coming of sliced bread. Forgive me, but this to me looks like it's hype hype hype.

Agree with this generally. Only so many kids have received over $4M in the US draft, yet most here toss out $ to this kid as if it's candy. Think of the top 16 year olds in HS in the US and how much change there is in their draft status by the time they are 18 and eligible for the draft. There is significant change and the US kids are judged against significantly better competition.

It would be nice to land Sano, but as I've posted before, I believe there is much better value in the lesser $ bonus kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that we spent $6 million on Ty Wigginton last winter when he wasn't even really needed at all, but the move was considered a "cheap" addition. The Orioles can more than afford to buy Sano, but the issue is whether you want to take the "risk" and possibly waste the money on an unproven prospect. My personal analogy is that we're willing to dish out comparable money on way over the hill old backups, so why not pony up for a possible cornerstone?

Wigginton was signed as the backup for Mora at 3rd, Huff at 1st, Roberts at 2nd and has even played the outfield. He can also be used to come off of the bench for PH roles.

Who should the Orioles have used to fulfill this need?

BTW - Wingginton is the same age as Scott and Roberts, 31 years old. That's an over the hill old backup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of talent is he playing against in the Dominican Republic? Compared to this, Strasburgh should get every penny of his 50 million. Talk about a guy who hasn't done anything to prove something. Not an olympic team, not international competition -- nothing. Just an agent hyping him up to be the second coming of sliced bread. Forgive me, but this to me looks like it's hype hype hype.

It's tough to hype an experienced baseball scout.

To a certain extent the level of comp doesn't matter. Scouts aren't looking at his batting average; they're analyzing his batting stroke, the speed of his swing, watching how the ball comes off his bat, whether he can consistently repeat his swing, how quickly he gets out of the box and down the line, his reactions in the field, the strength and accuracy of his arm... his fundamental baseball skills are expressed in these things, regardless of whom he's playing against.

And this isn't taking place in a vacuum. You could fill an MLB all-star team with players who have come out of his home town in the past 15 years, so when veteran scouts who have worked that area for years see something special, it's probably there.

Tom Greenwade signed Mickey Mantle after seeing him play one game, at age 17, between those baseball powerhouses, Baxter Springs and Coffeyville, Kansas.

When it's really there, it jumps out at you, if you know what you're looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a problem with foreign players having an advantage over american kids of the same age. The rules for signing should be the same for all. I'd rather spend the money on harper type talent at 16

Indeed. Those Dominican kids get all the breaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • I agree with most all of that. What we need is a good Rh hitting speedy defender out there whose strength at the plate is contact and hitting to all fields. How easy will it be to find a guy like that? Probably not real easy. 
    • At first, I was like whatever. They clearly ran a lot of numbers and determined it would benefit us. Now, I despise it.   Elias and Sig tried to hack the system to a degree by stacking a bunch of lefties and moving the wall while the shift got eliminated. In theory, it makes sense but we’ve yet to complement the plan with dominant LH pitchers of our own and 2 years straight we’ve been shut down in Game 1 by a lefty.    Also, an original comment was that it would help us bring in pitchers but that’s clearly been proven wrong. It’s always been more about money than pitching in a hitter friendly park. 
    • First 16 starts from: GRod - 5.44 ERA, 4.60 FIP, 1.407 WHIP, 9.6 SO/9, 1.6 HR/9, 3.6 BB/9 Bradish - 5.63 ERA, 4.89 FIP, 1.538 WHIP, 8.9 SO/9, 1.7 HR/9, 3.3 BB/9 Povich - 5.20 ERA, 4.79 FIP, 1.431 WHIP, 7.8 SO/9, 1.4 HR/9, 3.8 BB/9
    • I don't know of anywhere that has exactly what you are looking for. Statcast will tell you for every ball hit how many parks it would have gone out of, but I don't know how you could easily translate to one number of HR added/taken away.  For what it's worth, we were #2 in road HR, #3 in home HR, #4 in road OPS, #8 at home. Slight disadvantage but it's not like it makes the difference between an amazing offense and a bad one. Plus, presumably the other team has the same challenges. Theoretically, it should be an efficiency that we can exploit in building our team. Players that would be more valuable to us than other teams would be: LH power hitters (Gunnar, Kjerstad, Cowser, Mullins, O'Hearn) Speedy left fielder who would be CF on most teams (Cowser) LHP's who can negate opposing LH power hitters (bullpen has a good set of LHP's) RHB's who don't need to hit HR to be productive and/or with opposite field power (Westburg and Urias might fit this but Mountcastle not so much) However, I wonder whether we have gone too far in focusing on developing LHB. Now that we traded Norby, we really don't have much RH in the system. This hurts us when matched up against good LHP.    
    • It’s that last bolded part. Mostly.  What they’re showing in that chart is the run value of the actual outcome of each pitch the batter saw in that zone — not the value of “good take” vs. “bad swing,” as you might assume based on the context. So in the the heart of the plate, for example, everyone’s “take” runs are going to be negative, because taking almost assuredly resulted in a strike every time. So every “take” outcome was negative, and they’re adding up that negative run value for each one to get the total damage done by taking pitches in the middle of the plate. For Adley, that was -13 runs of negative value this year.  On the other hand, you get a wide disparity of values from “swings” in the heart of the plate, and that’s basically dependent on how good the hitter is. Because what they’re looking at is the result of the swing — good hitters do tons of damage on pitches down the middle, but bad hitters still make lots of outs on them. The worst hitter in baseball on pitches in the heart of the plate was Maikel “Just Go Ahead and Bunt Three Times” Garcia. He took almost as many of these pitches as Adley, so his takes in the heart of the plate were worth -12 runs. He also sucked something terrible at hitting them, posting a whopping -19 run value when he swung at pitches in the heart zone. The best hitter in baseball on pitches in the heart of the plate (and top 5 in every zone) was…wait for it…Aaron Judge with +41 run value. Though he was much better than league average at swinging at heart pitches, he still took 160 of them (for strikes), so those were worth -11 runs. He destroyed the pitches he swung at, though, to the tune of +52 runs on swings.    It’s the same throughout all the other zones. So for Adley, his takes were a little below average in the “shadow” zone — meaning the pitches he took around the fringes of the plate were called strikes more than they were called balls. And all the called balls he took in the “chase” and “waste” zones were worth a combined total of +40 runs. Swings in the “shadow” zone usually result in negative value, except for your really elite hit tool guys (Witt, Ramirez, Marte, Alvarez, etc). Which makes sense, because it’s really the so-called “pitcher’s pitch” area. Adley was -14 runs of value added on his swing here, which is not great but not really horrible either.  The last two zones are pretty simple — taking pitches will result in a ball, so all of those are good outcomes. Swinging at them pretty much inevitably will result in a strike or an out, so they’re almost all bad outcomes. Adley was comparatively good in this area, with the value of his ability to lay off bad pitches far outweighing the damage done when he did chase.    In the end, it sort of tells us the same story that we already knew from watching him. He’s pretty good at laying off bad pitches, although he expanded the zone a lot more this year than last (which didn’t seem to work out). He also just inexplicably took tons of good strikes in the heart of the plate (which definitely didn’t work out). Swinging at more bad pitches and less good pitches is certainly part of the recipe for the disastrous 2nd half, I think.
    • Also noting an market move away from long-term SP commitments...  2023-24 off-season saw some FA SP difficulties landing their hoped-for deals 
    • On #10, I think we may experiment with trying Akin as a starter again.  If he were to add a sinker and improve his change-up (a la Chris Sale last year), we may have something.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...