Sun: O's likely to make offer to Sano, have some interest in Chapman

[Lucky Jim]

Maybe, maybe not.

Koji was given a lot of money and the Orioles knew of his issues...He will be paid a lot of money to pitch out of the pen next year.

Given that and the upside of Sano and the difference in money spent, i am not sure one is that much more of a risk vs the other.

The risk is obviously different. The ceiling on value is obviously different. Which may mean they have equal value (or that Sano is more valuable).

But there is no disputing that one is a greater risk than the other.

[Answerman]

What if Sano nevr becomes a star? Does that smell of money wasted? Not necessarily. What if he becomes the next Iszturis? Is four million a good price for six years of Izzy? I'd argue yes. For that reason I'd invest.

[Mackus]

What if Sano nevr becomes a star? Does that smell of money wasted? Not necessarily. What if he becomes the next Iszturis? Is four million a good price for six years of Izzy? I'd argue yes. For that reason I'd invest.

You wouldn't get six years of Izzy for $4M. You'd get 6 years of whatever he'd make as a pre-arb and arb guy (for someone like Izzy probably about $15M) plus the $4M signing bonus.

If he becomes a regular starter, then theres no doubt the signing bonus was worth it. Of course, the odds are definitely far against that, even for one of the more talented kids.

[LookinUp]

If by "we" you mean OH, well, separating hype from reality can be tough at a distance.

If you mean the O's, I don't see most MLB clubs being susceptible to external spin about a player's abilities, and AM probably less than most. Agents might be able to work some negotiating tactics in the media, but when it comes to player evaluation, GMs will stick to what their scouts and maybe their own eyes tell them.

By we, I meant the OH (and JTrea, in particular). The O's should have completed a thorough review of his skills by now if they're at all interested in spending that type of money.

[bird watcher]

These comparisons of spending $ on Sano versus poorly spent $ on Gibbons or relievers or Koji really are not appropriate comparisons to determining Sano's potential signing bonus. One could counter that what Adam Jones is being paid for his all-star performance would only justify a signing bonus to Sano of $250k.

Sano's worth to the Os should be determined by the relative cost of other talent in the international market as well as the cost of comparable talent in the US. If the Os consider Sano to be a late first round talent (with a signing bonus around $1.25M - $1.5M), then why pay $4M when we could have simply drafted a comparable domestic talent in the later rounds and offered above slot $?

My guess is that some of the quotes from JorgeA are posturing on the Os part to lower expectations (which would only be standard protocol for AM). Still, while the Os can judge Sano on one level, the market may value him on another. At that point, it's up to the Os FO if there is appropriate value in making a market offer or spending the $ elsewhere. My main point being that the appropriate amount to offer Sano has little to do with poorly spent $ on Jay Gibbons or Jay Payton.

I agree in theory IF we had unlimited draft picks. We do not. I won't argue whether the guy is any good. I have no idea. But if he is then we should be signing him AND spending over slot on comparable talent in later rounds of the draft. It isn't an either or.

[Arthur_Bryant]

By we, I meant the OH (and JTrea, in particular). The O's should have completed a thorough review of his skills by now if they're at all interested in spending that type of money.

Thanks. We agree. (Meaning "you" and "I"...)

I almost always manage to avoid the first person plural when referring to the team, but sometimes it manages to creep in there for the best of us.

[Stotle]

I agree in theory IF we had unlimited draft picks. We do not. I won't argue whether the guy is any good. I have no idea. But if he is then we should be signing him AND spending over slot on comparable talent in later rounds of the draft. It isn't an either or.

This is the correct approach. It comes down to a very simple question:

"If you could have three first round picks in the draft, would you take the best player available (regardless of cost but within reason) with each pick?"

That is essentially what teams like BOS (and recently OAK) have done by paying a premium for early talents in later rounds. It's worth noting that all overslot signings are not created equal. You could go over slot four times in the first ten rounds and end up with a poorer collection of talent than a team that only went overslot twice, provided those two times were on top tier talents.

I'm not advocating senseless spending, but premium talent will always cost a premium, regardless of if it's in the draft (by bonus and/or pick), free agency (by contract price), international signings (bonus and, as applicable, posting fees), or trade (quality of assets given up).

Being wise with your money is important -- and sometimes spending a premium on select players is the wise move.

[Arthur_Bryant]

I'm not advocating senseless spending, but premium talent will always cost a premium, regardless of if it's in the draft (by bonus and/or pick), free agency (by contract price), international signings (bonus and, as applicable, posting fees), or trade (quality of assets given up).

Being wise with your money is important -- and sometimes spending a premium on select players is the wise move.

Well put.

For a couple of years the O's have been among the top spenders in MLB, helped along by the Wieters bonus. Depending on what happens with Sano and some of the overslot kids, that may not be the case this year, which I'd be sorry to see.

When really smart teams like San Diego, Oakland, and Boston start diving into markets, it's a sign that somebody is leaving value on the table.

[Lucky Jim]

Well, pretty much the biggest downside for Koji is that you'd get roughly $3-4M worth of performance out of him. The biggest downside for Sano obviously is that you get $0 worth of performance out of him.

I'd say $0 / $4M is worse than $3M / $10M.

Of course that doesn't take the potential upside into consideration at all. No doubt Sano comes far ahead in that one, although the odds of him reaching that upside, even with all his talent, are still incredibly slim.

The total risk to value calcuation (basically the 1% chance he becomes a $100M player for us, the 5% chance he's a $60M player over his time here, the 20% chance he's a $30M player all the way down to the 30% chance he is a $0 player here compared to the $3-4M we have to spend on him, and feel free to change all the percentages as you like them) is probably much more favorable for Sano than for a similar analysis of Koji.

Still, they are completely different scenarios and comparing them is a waste of time. They represent exact opposite wavelengths of the team-building spectra. Koji is signing players to help the MLB team immediately, Sano is signing players to help the MLB team in the future. Obviously you spend a ton more on the first than the second, because its an immediate, and much more guaranteed, return. Doesn't mean you ignore the latter though, and the more you invest in the long term will ultimately, pretty much inevitably, lead to higher returns.

Nicely stated. And like an hour before me.

[Sports Guy]

Nicely stated. And like an hour before me.

It depends how you define risk.

Yes, Koji is more likely to give you something for your money but that's not the only way of looking at it.

[El Gordo]

It depends how you define risk.

Yes, Koji is more likely to give you something for your money but that's not the only way of looking at it.

What's another way of looking at it? Koji is less likely to be a serial killer than Sano?:laughlol:

[mdterpsrule]

From today's mlbtraderumors chat:

3:21[Comment From Andy MacPhail]

How serious am I about Miguel Sano?

3:22 Arangure Jr. says the O's and Pirates are frontrunners, so quite serious[/Quote]

3:27 [Comment From DR]

Where will Sano sign and for how much?

3:28 I'll say Pittsburgh for $3.4MM[/Quote]

[crawdad]

From today's mlbtraderumors chat:

Though Tim Dierkes does get around . . . I really would not put too much faith in his opinions. He is a good conduit for information, but has shown some difficulty in synthesizing something new or reading a situation well. With a situation like this . . . I think there is even less information than usual to base a comment on, so I think he is more giving an answer to placate someone than actually giving a solid answer that means much of anything.

[Lucky Jim]

It depends on if you define riskcorrectly.

Yes, Koji is more likely to give you something for your money but that's not the only way of looking at it.

You're simply confusing the probabilistic determination of the value of the acquisition (which internalizes risk) for the risk itself.

I don't think anyone would define the risk of Koji as being "the risk he doesn't become an elite offensive shortstop."

Koji was a very very low risk acquisition - who at worst would be a MLB bullpen guy. Mackus is right on this one.

[JTrea81]

You're simply confusing the probabilistic determination of the value of the acquisition (which internalizes risk) for the risk itself.

I don't think anyone would define the risk of Koji as being "the risk he doesn't become an elite offensive shortstop."

Koji was a very very low risk acquisition - who at worst would be a MLB bullpen guy. Mackus is right on this one.

True but Sano gives you more potential for your dollar than Koji did. With Sano you could have an MLB superstar or a dud.

However, given the fact that you could spend say $4 million and possibly develop a superstar internally, vs. pay $100 million plus for one in FA or trade several valuable pieces to get one, you would think that the $4 million investment would be worth it, not even taking into effect the watershed moment and inroads it would be for your franchise in the D.R.

At some point, you've got to take risks to move your franchise forward. We can continue to take relatively small risks and continue to inch forward, or we can take some more substantial risks that won't really set the franchise back other than the loss of $ and potentially speed up the process. To me the inroads that Sano represents is worth the financial risk alone, not even factoring his potential.