How can you guys not be talking more about Sano?

[jets4ever]

I do buy and sell on eBay yes...

And if I do want something bad enough I hit the "Buy it Now" if it is an option and it is a hot item.

I may have overpaid, but at least I got what I wanted.

And, hopefully that's what the O's do here.

Without overpaying, of course.

Unless they have to.

[JTrea81]

And, hopefully that's what the O's do here.

Without overpaying, of course.

Unless they have to.

Bingo, Sano is definately a "hot item."

[Lucky Jim]

Now, that isn't to say that the organization should be fiscally irresponsible, but I believe it can't be a slave to the principles of not overpaying. If Harris wants 300K and BAL thinks he is worth 250K, at what point do you say "50K is worth the risk"? If Markakis had refused to sign unless he received a total of $6mios more than he got, should BAL have refused to sign him because it was "more than they thought he was worth"?

I'm not sure how true this is, in actuality. Provided you account for the lost developmental year in your valuation, and assume that like talent is available the next year.

Likewise, if BAL thinks Sano is a special talent, and places his value at $4mios, how could you not go to $4.2mios? Do you go to $4.5mios? $5mios? I don't know. But I don't think you can limit yourself to solely paying value. It's a great way to run a business, but I think ultimately there is a gray area between value and irresponsible that requires some face time in order to max out your opportunity for winning without overly-burdening your resources.

I noted this in my above post. But it seems like it may be discrete from the draft issue because it's relatively unbounded.

[BringBackMagic]

Bingo, Sano is definately a "hot item."

And if Sano turns out to be a flop. We can write nasty things about the seller's reputation for selling us a lemon. That'll show'em.

[byrdz]

Yes. This is why JTrea should be the VP for Baseball Operations. Free Agency is just like eBay.

https://www.ezsniper.com/join.php3

We need to sign up for this. Wait until the last second and beat the top offer by 1 Cent.

Haha, hilarious! Maybe the agents should should eBay auction their players?

Boras would have Buy it Now's at 30mil/yr for 20 years...

[Stotle]

This is, of course, fair. Frankly, however, I think there has to be a hard ceiling on what you think his ceiling multiplied/discounted by his probability is worth. It's just that the valuation must have some kind of internal accounting for both your desire to purchase and the inherent difficult of precisely valuing. And you don't go over it.

Now, disagree all you want, but for me going into this bidding w/o such a ceiling would be highly problematic. In that sense, I stand by the statement that you don't pay a penny more than someone is worth. But I'll admit that it may have been poorly phrased.

I guess I understand that in principle, but I don't agree with it in practice. Supposing the top talent is almost always going to require a premium, it seems like your approach would land you lots and lots of good but not great players, except in instances wherein you identify undervalued guys.

I think, instead, the best course of action is probably using your general approach, but being willing on occasion to spend a little more to get the guy you really, really want. That's what Washington will have to do this year with Strasburg, and it's likely what the drafting organization will have to do next year with Harper. Is Strasburg honestly worth three Matt Wieters? Most likely, no. But that might be what it costs to sign him. If you want him, it may mean paying more than you think he is worth.

[Flosman]

I don't recall any of those players getting a six figure bonus to sign.

Can you tell me the hit rate on the six figure bonus babies? I think I have read it is not too high. So if you are right about none of these guys being in that class wouldn't that actually be a positive for AM. You know signing guys that actually have success, not just guys that have successful PR teams.

[Lucky Jim]

I guess I understand that in principle, but I don't agree with it in practice. Supposing the top talent is almost always going to require a premium, it seems like your approach would land you lots and lots of good but not great players, except in instances wherein you identify undervalued guys.

I think, instead, the best course of action is probably using your general approach, but being willing on occasion to spend a little more to get the guy you really, really want. That's what Washington will have to do this year with Strasburg, and it's likely what the drafting organization will have to do next year with Harper. Is Strasburg honestly worth three Matt Wieters? Most likely, no. But that might be what it costs to sign him. If you want him, it may mean paying more than you think he is worth.

Well, I've noted many times that I think Strasburg is a recipe for disaster, and almost feel bad for the Nats.

If I were them, I'd play serious chicken with Strasburg unless they were absolutely sure that they couldn't get prototypical 1-1 like talent w/ the pick next year.

Let him lose another year.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. Although I agree that teams should be willing to expand their parameters when dealing w/ anomalous situations. I think Wieters is a good example. Ignoring what we know about him post-signing, the fact is that a switch-hitting C w/ power and the potential for plus defense is virtually impossible to find. But if that's the case, then the scarcity issue would seem to factor in your valuation: you'll be paying what you think someone is worth.

The real question - w/ Sano and w/ the draft - is "how much better is X than X's replacement next year"? But if you've valued someone, including ceiling, probability, and scarcity, then why go above your ceiling? I just don't see a reason for it.

[Stotle]

I'm not sure how true this is, in actuality. Provided you account for the lost developmental year in your valuation, and assume that like talent is available the next year.

How can you set a valuation on a player who's value will almost certainly change over the next three months? Not to mention your budget shifts with each player you sign and each player who declares he won't sign. By your logic, even if BAL has $500K left in their draft budget on August 17, you wouldn't give Harris an extra $20K than value in order to get the deal done and get him into your system. I strongly disagree with that line of thinking. You can boast you didn't overpay, but I'm not sure I prefer that to Harris ultimately landing in Atlanta in the second round next year and going on to be a productive player.

I noted this in my above post. But it seems like it may be discrete from the draft issue because it's relatively unbounded.

I disagree. No matter what the financial decisions, there will be variables that affect the value of the item you are purchasing. I don't think a hard ceiling is a realistic approach, particularly with regards to amateur talent.

[Stotle]

Well, I've noted many times that I think Strasburg is a recipe for disaster, and almost feel bad for the Nats.

If I were them, I'd play serious chicken with Strasburg unless they were absolutely sure that they couldn't get prototypical 1-1 like talent w/ the pick next year.

Let him lose another year.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. Although I agree that teams should be willing to expand their parameters when dealing w/ anomalous situations. I think Wieters is a good example. Ignoring what we know about him post-signing, the fact is that a switch-hitting C w/ power and the potential for plus defense is virtually impossible to find. But if that's the case, then the scarcity issue would seem to factor in your valuation: you'll be paying what you think someone is worth.

The real question - w/ Sano and w/ the draft - is "how much better is X than X's replacement next year"? But if you've valued someone, including ceiling, probability, and scarcity, then why go above your ceiling? I just don't see a reason for it.

See, for me, this is the question that you have to occasionally be willing to ask:

Your value for player - X

What it takes to sign player - Y

What else are you going to do with Y-X that is going to make you a better team. In the draft, Y-X could be the difference in signing another player, maybe you refuse to go past X. If, however, you're refusing to budge solely on principle, you aren't really accomplishing anything aside for letting a valuable asset go somewhere other than your organization.

Anyway, interesting talk. I think we just see this differently.

[Lucky Jim]

Not to mention your budget shifts with each player you sign and each player who declares he won't sign. By your logic, even if BAL has $500K left in their draft budget on August 17, you wouldn't give Harris an extra $20K than value in order to get the deal done and get him into your system. I strongly disagree with that line of thinking.

First, I think institutional concerns are very valid, and almost posted as much: one's willingness to go slightly over one's de-contextualized valuation has to at least acknowledge that a team wants a certain amount of talent entering the system each year. So, if you've struck out on your overslot draftpicks, it might behoove you to go over.

If you've done well, it might inspire you to hold off.

I get that - there are extrinsic/contextual concerns.

I'm not sure where you're reliance on that "extra $20K" number comes from, other than the fact that it's a low number that makes my approach look overly narrow. It seems a bit of a strawman - I've noted that I think you've got to build in some wiggle in this instance because of the nature of the valuation process. But the comment came up in response to Trea's notion that even if a team valued Sano at $4m they should be willing to go as high as it takes to sign him. I may have responded simplistically, as I acknowledge, but you're picking a largely irrelevant skirmish on the margins.

Second, what if a team has $500K left over and he asks $50K more than you think he's worth? What if he asks for $75k? Where do you draw the line?

Why spend it there just to spend it? Obviously there are other avenues (a player from the DR who can be had for less than $100K) and you get a replacement pick. It's mostly fungible.

If in the course of negotiations your inputs change - for some reason the player becomes more valuable - so be it. But the bottom line should remain that you don't pay more for talent than you think it is worth.

In the end, you're far more bullish on amateur talent than I am. That's not a knock and is probably a compliment. Regardless, it's a simple fact. As such, you're far more likely to think that extra money is warranted. I tend to view that money spent as inherently more speculative.

As for the draft and international FAs not being "different" we'll have to agree to disagree. The fact that there are always going to be shifting variables is a similarity between the two. That doesn't mean those shifting variables are necessarily similar. One is an auction, one is a draft. I don't think having the same approach to both is necessarily going to be the best idea.

[JTrea81]

Supposing the top talent is almost always going to require a premium, it seems like your approach would land you lots and lots of good but not great players, except in instances wherein you identify undervalued guys.

This is MacPhail's MO.

I think, instead, the best course of action is probably using your general approach, but being willing on occasion to spend a little more to get the guy you really, really want. That's what Washington will have to do this year with Strasburg, and it's likely what the drafting organization will have to do next year with Harper. Is Strasburg honestly worth three Matt Wieters? Most likely, no. But that might be what it costs to sign him. If you want him, it may mean paying more than you think he is worth.

And this is what he needs to do.

[Lucky Jim]

What else are you going to do with Y-X that is going to make you a better team. In the draft, Y-X could be the difference in signing another player, maybe you refuse to go past X. If, however, you're refusing to budge solely on principle, you aren't really accomplishing anything aside for letting a valuable asset go somewhere other than your organization.

It's not based on principle. It's based on the idea that every dollar not spent could be applied elsewhere at gain for the franchise.

Better video equipment, better facilities, an international signing, etc.

It's not about principle at all. It's about finite resources and trusting your valuations. It's about an inexhaustable effort to make your team better in a variety of ways, rather than simply overpaying for amateur talent.

[Khaezh12]

That is not how good baseball teams are run. That is how the Yankees are run. That said I would like Sano as much as the next guy, but one player does not a World Series contender make.

So you haven't heard of the Good Word that is Matt Wieters.

[JTrea81]

It's not based on principle. It's based on the idea that every dollar not spent could be applied elsewhere at gain for the franchise.

Better video equipment, better facilities, an international signing, etc.

It's not about principle at all. It's about finite resources and trusting your valuations. It's about an inexhaustable effort to make your team better in a variety of ways, rather than simply overpaying for amateur talent.

The Orioles resources are not that limited. We didn't spend our allotment on FA. And you can bet had we actually signed Tex, we would have also extended Roberts and Markakis, so those two didn't suck up the budget either.

This team can afford to risk $5 million or more on the top Latin talent in this international FA class. We are paying Jay Gibbons $6 million not to play for us, so there is money that is coming free on top of the huge amounts of cash from revenue sharing, MLB TV/merchandising revenue and MASN revenue.