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

[McNulty]

Ah, The Trea. Reminding me why my week away from the board was happy.

[allstar1579]

"Raising our profile in the DR" is somewhat irrelevant to the issue regarding Sano's worth and what we should offer. It's a cash economy down there and paying (or overpaying) for Sano isn't going to spread pixie dust to magically attract the better players to our org. The club's investment in our baseball academy in Boca Chica provides a headquarters for our DR operations and there's no necessity or benefit to "raising our profile".

We are there in the DR to find talent, not to raise our profiles by announcing that we are deep pocket chumps open for business to corrupt buscones who parlay young kids for a relative fortune. A decade of losing doesn't mean you risk your money unnecessarily. It does mean, however, you spend it more wisely.

The O's are doing their scouting homework on this kid. They'll offer what they've judged to be Sano's potential value. Doing our own armchair scouting on an internet board amusingly kills some time for us, but it's far removed from the serious business we're talking about.

Well, not exactly. The way the DR works is these players are found by local DR guys who help train and develop them and then they take them to whatever academies they have contacts with in order to try to get them signed and get a finder's fee. It's all about networking down there, we can have as many guys down there as we want, if we don't have the ties and the trust of some of these guys you won't get the talent. It's kind of like a 3rd world "good-ol-boy" network. Hence why there were scandals involving signing bonuses and stuff down there. It's more politics than you'd think, like ok we'll give you this as long as you get us your top talent, they have to cater to the mentors more than the players.

The thing with the O's is that they have values in mind for players and are not going to go over those values. I would imagine they are on the conservative side with their values too since there is no track record and no bidding to speak of to drive up the price.

These guys aren't like normal FA, they are in a foreign country, with little to no competition and more questions than abilities. With MLB FA they have a track record, amateur, minors, majors, these guys don't have anything outside of their potential, which is a very inexact science.

[JTrea81]

Can someone ask him this question for me, I assume he has me on ignore.

No I don't have you on ignore. I was hoping to find something to answer the question, but I can't seem to find anything concrete.

The Yankees were interested, but supposedly only at $3 million (the same they gave to Sanchez) or less. But this is the same team that wasn't interested in Tex to start as well, so you can never count them out...

[Skywalker76]

This is from MLB Trade rumors on Sano:

"8:58pm: ESPN's Jorge Arangure, who's been on the ball since the international signing period began on July 2, just rattled off a couple of interesting "tweets" involving 16-year-old shortstop Miguel Angel Sano:

"Am convinced Sano will not get record money. Orioles see him as late-first-round talent, which does not equal $4 million. More like $1-$1.5."

"Those who think Orioles will give record $ for Sano remember: They gave $3.2m to No. 4 pick [brian] Matusz last year. Gave [Matt] Hobgood $2.4 this yr."

"There's no way Orioles are giving more to Sano than they gave Matusz and Hobgood.""

Two things: There is only a slight chance the O's land him and I would be really surprised if they do get him. Second it seems that the Twins backed out of trying to sign him so that leaves only the Pirates and O's, why are there only two teams involved?

[waroriole]

No I don't have you on ignore. I was hoping to find something to answer the question, but I can't seem to find anything concrete.

The Yankees were interested, but supposedly only at $3 million (the same they gave to Sanchez) or less. But this is the same team that wasn't interested in Tex to start as well, so you can never count them out...

So could you not logically conclude that he may not be the can't miss prospect that you are pegging him to be? Maybe AM could be correct if he presumes that the risk is not worth it to sign him.

I know this raises another question, if your answer is yes, and that is why aren't we signing other DR youngsters. That I don't have an answer to, other than it will take time to properly evaluate our program down there and we can expect it to come along eventually.

Hopefully, this doesn't become an issue and we do sign him, but I don't think it's something to throw at AM's feet until we know why he didn't sign him (if he doesn't).

[LookinUp]

So could you not logically conclude that he may not be the can't miss prospect that you are pegging him to be? Maybe AM could be correct if he presumes that the risk is not worth it to sign him.

I know this raises another question, if your answer is yes, and that is why aren't we signing other DR youngsters. That I don't have an answer to, other than it will take time to properly evaluate our program down there and we can expect it to come along eventually.

Hopefully, this doesn't become an issue and we do sign him, but I don't think it's something to throw at AM's feet until we know why he didn't sign him (if he doesn't).

Is Trea really calling him a can't miss prospect? I haven't seen it but I could have easily missed it.

Trea, care to give us your "evaluation" of him?

[crawdad]

Is Trea really calling him a can't miss prospect? I haven't seen it but I could have easily missed it.

Trea, care to give us your "evaluation" of him?

One thing I would like to add . . . I do not think anyone on this board can evaluate him. None of us have really seen enough of him. The only guy who has seen him is Plummer and he is not exactly an unbiased reference.

I think if anyone is hard core for or against this guy . . . they might be extending themselves a bit far.

[waroriole]

Is Trea really calling him a can't miss prospect? I haven't seen it but I could have easily missed it.

Trea, care to give us your "evaluation" of him?

Well, I've probably overstated his assessment of Sano, but he does keep saying that a failure to sign Sano is more proof that AM will not spend money for "premium talent." So, basically my point is that maybe AM doesn't think he is premium talent.

[Sports Guy]

He is also a much bigger risk than Koji was.

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.

[Mackus]

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.

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.

[allstar1579]

One thing I would like to add . . . I do not think anyone on this board can evaluate him. None of us have really seen enough of him. The only guy who has seen him is Plummer and he is not exactly an unbiased reference.

I think if anyone is hard core for or against this guy . . . they might be extending themselves a bit far.

For the win. Well said.

[Hank Scorpio]

One thing I would like to add . . . I do not think anyone on this board can evaluate him. None of us have really seen enough of him. The only guy who has seen him is Plummer and he is not exactly an unbiased reference.

I think if anyone is hard core for or against this guy . . . they might be extending themselves a bit far.

THANK you.

[hoosiers]

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.

[LookinUp]

Well, I've probably overstated his assessment of Sano, but he does keep saying that a failure to sign Sano is more proof that AM will not spend money for "premium talent." So, basically my point is that maybe AM doesn't think he is premium talent.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Trea articulates his case well all of the time. However, somewhere in his posts, there is a good case to be made.

His problem, IMO, is everyone has to assume that this kid has excellent potential. To your's and crawdad's points, that really is only an assumption at this point. I've seen at least one mention of him projecting as an outfielder, so the SS value goes down immediately. You and others have also raised the obvious question about why other teams aren't in the running.

Alternatively, we hear stories about him getting the biggest bonus ever. Is that the Latin American hype machine or is it based on actual projections? How can we know that we're not caught up in exactly what they're trying to make MLB clubs believe?

OTOH, the O's seem quite interested, pending his age investigation. This has to tell us SOMETHING about what we think of him. We can't be so clueless that we think $1 million will sign him. So, if we have legit interest (a big if, IMO), then Trea's case starts to make a lot of sense. It really comes down to where the O's should take risks and where we should pay a premium for talent.

Relative to Japan or FA, the financial risk to signing Sano is small. Additionally, as Trea has articulated, signing Sano would be a useful step toward opening the doors to the Dominican marketplace. That surely has some value.

Bottom line: if the bolded portion above is accurate, I'm strongly in favor of paying above our valuation to sign Sano. This is the type of risk I think the O's should be taking.

[Arthur_Bryant]

How can we know that we're not caught up in exactly what they're trying to make MLB clubs believe?

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.