How can you guys not be talking more about Sano?

[HoodGuy007]

I really hope we get this kid.

What is Sanos' ceiling? Does he project as A-Rod or more Miguel Cabrera?

[Stotle]

Because you don't have complete information about what opportunities may arise over the course of the season?

Making decisions to spend money above your valuation now because you haven't imagined what else you might spend it on later seems highly Trea-like. Maybe you agree w/ Trea on this front.

If the O's really don't know where else they'll spend the $2m above what they've valued Sano, then perhaps they should just go all-in, I guess.

As Trea says, they'll get what they want.

Is $50,000 > Devin Harris + 1yr - Devin Harris Replacement Pick?

I guess that's your question, absent the earmarks. Seems to me a kind of endowment effect. You know what something's worth, but suddenly your valuation of it elevates simply because it's (sort-of) in your possession.

I think the issue is being confused a bit. I'm obviously not saying "I can't think of what to spend money on so I'll spend $2mios on a shiny red truck" which is how your post reads.

Back to square one:

Your stance was that you should be able to set a hard ceiling a not go a penny over, with the understanding that lots can go into setting that ceiling.

Accordingly, having to go $20K, $200K or even $2 over your ceiling would seem to go against what you are proposing. Though you called my "going $20K over" example a strawman, isn't it essentially what you're claiming BAL should not do, provided they have properly computed a value for Harris?

My stance was that it is a necessity to at least some times live in the gray area that exists between the value of a player and fiscal irresponsibility. I make all of my internal calculations and decide that Harris is worth $250K as a sophomore sign, taking all variables into account. Turns out it will take $325 to sign him. The question I ask is whether or not this is irresponsible, or potentially damaging to my other plans. I know I'm paying more than I think I should be, but how would this overpay affect my ability to continue to operate to the betterment of my organization?

There will be instances were I value a player at X and it turns out I can sign him at X-$75K, or whatever. I think not permitting the occasional over-spend is unnecessarily limiting my ability to best add talent to the system. I think this applies to any avenue of player acquisition - Rule 4, international signings, free agency or trade.

So to summarize, I guess I do have a ceiling -- irresponsibility. But I have to set that ceiling on a case-by-case basis and it will on occasion be over value (at times, even a good deal so).

[Anonymous]

Do you understand how an auction works? Do you have any economic sense at all?

Maybe we think he's worth $4m and we're unsure how high others will go, so we're testing him out. That doesn't mean that we should give him $6m just because we "want" him. It's seriously nuts. You're not even illogical anymore. You're alogical.

It's like you've never been introduced to logic. Wouldn't recognize it if it bumped into you on the street (and - probably - stole your wallet.)

Attempting to teach basic logic to the Trea is about the most illogical thing imaginable. Are you sure you're feeling okay?

[liquid0623]

What is Sanos' ceiling? Does he project as A-Rod or more Miguel Cabrera?

A R o d

[Lucky Jim]

I think the issue is being confused a bit. I'm obviously not saying "I can't think of what to spend money on so I'll spend $2mios on a shiny red truck" which is how your post reads.

Back to square one:

Your stance was that you should be able to set a hard ceiling a not go a penny over, with the understanding that lots can go into setting that ceiling.

Accordingly, having to go $20K, $200K or even $2 over your ceiling would seem to go against what you are proposing. Though you called my "going $20K over" example a strawman, isn't it essentially what you're claiming BAL should not do, provided they have properly computed a value for Harris?

My stance was that it is a necessity to at least some times live in the gray area that exists between the value of a player and fiscal irresponsibility. I make all of my internal calculations and decide that Harris is worth $250K as a sophomore sign, taking all variables into account. Turns out it will take $325 to sign him. The question I ask is whether or not this is irresponsible, or potentially damaging to my other plans. I know I'm paying more than I think I should be, but how would this overpay affect my ability to continue to operate to the betterment of my organization?

There will be instances were I value a player at X and it turns out I can sign him at X-$75K, or whatever. I think not permitting the occasional over-spend is unnecessarily limiting my ability to best add talent to the system. I think this applies to any avenue of player acquisition - Rule 4, international signings, free agency or trade.

So to summarize, I guess I do have a ceiling -- irresponsibility. But I have to set that ceiling on a case-by-case basis and it will on occasion be over value (at times, even a good deal so).

But I've said that the statement "not a penny over" was stated only as a counter to Trea's exaggerated "whatever it takes" approach. I think we need a hard ceiling, but I also think that a difference of $25K wouldn't violate that.

[wickedwitch]

Yes, but I don't see the Orioles or any team getting close to the $10 million mark. With all the dreck we've signed, this team can certainly outbid any other team within that window.

Money was no object supposedly according to Peter Angelos in pursuit of top FA talent last offseason. Money should not be a problem in pursuing Miguel Sano. This team has no excuse to cry poor. If the A's and Pirates can spend millions on Latin talent, so can the Orioles.

Then why would you blame MacPhail and not Angelos?

[Bings012]

all of this algebra is giving me a headache, i'm not going to run numbers or get myself all excited, i am simply going to hope we can somehow manage to get this kid, and others like him into the orioles system

[Stotle]

But I've said that the statement "not a penny over" was stated only as a counter to Trea's exaggerated "whatever it takes" approach. I think we need a hard ceiling, but I also think that a difference of $25K wouldn't violate that.

Then how are we saying anything different? Can you distinguish how what you are saying differs from my initial post (which was directed towards your absolute ceiling comment)? It seems like you can counter Trea's exaggerated "whatever it takes" stance with something closer to what I put forth. Do you actually disagree with what I said?

[JTrea81]

Then why would you blame MacPhail and not Angelos?

I have no doubt that MacPhail chose not to spend Angelos' money.

I don't really want to go down this road, as my opinion is known. Let's keep this about Sano and try not to have every other post be one that tries to attack or ridicule me. I don't do that to anybody else so I wish people would stop trying to do it here.

[JTrea81]

I really hope we get this kid.

Same here. Even if he has to move off SS, his bat will be valuable.

[Moose Milligan]

I have no doubt that MacPhail chose not to spend Angelos' money.

I don't really want to go down this road, as my opinion is known. Let's keep this about Sano and try not to have every other post be one that tries to attack or ridicule me. I don't do that to anybody else so I wish people would stop trying to do it here.

We'd just like to know the proof and evidence as to why you have no doubt that MacPhail is choosing not to spend Angelos' money.

It's not an attack, its asking for evidence. When you keep making claims like that, people want to know why you think the way you do. If you don't have anything concrete it doesn't look good.

[JTrea81]

We'd just like to know the proof and evidence as to why you have no doubt that MacPhail is choosing not to spend Angelos' money.

It's not an attack, its asking for evidence. When you keep making claims like that, people want to know why you think the way you do. If you don't have anything concrete it doesn't look good.

I don't have concrete proof, it's just my opinion based on the way MacPhail has operated with the Cubs and what he has said in interviews. IMO the guy just does not want to take any risks and as a result doesn't go all in after premium guys because he'd rather as Stotle put it "buy a whole bunch of good players" instead of investing in one or two premium guys. He wants to minimize the risk in an investment in all his transactions and that's not always a good thing. The Red Sox even before they had the cash flow they do now, did not worry about taking risks if it improved their ballclub. The Cubs wallowed under MacPhail for the majority of the time when he was the CEO because he refused to spend money to take the club to the next level. And now that he's gone the Cubs are suddenly in the playoffs 2 years in a row because they decided to finally spend some money to improve their club. Hendry isn't afraid to use his club's resources and take a risk or two and his club has reaped the benefit of that.

You don't have to agree with it, but that's the way I feel.

Hopefully Sano might be a sign that he's finally willing to take a significant risk and spend some money on one premium guy to improve the ballclub.

[LookinUp]

I'm sure a mathematician could break this down in pretty simple terms. Every player has some range of value and some probability of reaching different levels within that range, determined based on scouting. Teams have to determine a value for each player based on their ceiling and probabilities of reaching a certain status within that range. The players at the top of that value chart see their costs go up exponentially. On the other hand, none will ever be paid anywhere near their highest possible value. Sano won't get paid anything close to his ceiling value.

What Trea is advocating is essentially that 1.) a standard valuation won't ever net us this talent, so we should be willing to pay a premium, and 2.) we should be willing to pay a higher premium on top of our standard valuation for premium talent to make sure we can get this guy. I get the feeling that Trea wants us to do this in almost every case, and that's where I disagree, but I would like the O's to splurge every now and then for elite talent.

This isn't exactly out of the main stream. How many Yankees fans liked it when they swooped in and signed all of Sabathia, Burnett and Teixeira? How many Skins fans liked it when they signed Haynesworth, Portis, etc? How many Royals fans liked it when they paid too much for Meche?

How many people on this board wanted us to pony up a little more cash for Carlos Lee, Vlad Guerrero and Tex?

A lot.

[wickedwitch]

This isn't exactly out of the main stream. How many Yankees fans liked it when they swooped in and signed all of Sabathia, Burnett and Teixeira? How many Skins fans liked it when they signed Haynesworth, Portis, etc? How many Royals fans liked it when they paid too much for Meche?

The Skins traded for Portis, and personally, I was not pleased with the Haynesworth signing.

[LookinUp]

The Skins traded for Portis, and personally, I was not pleased with the Haynesworth signing.

What's your point? Both were expensive and a ton of people liked those moves, even if you didn't. The point was that a lot of people love it when their owners go out and make sure they get what they want, even if they over pay some.