International Signings This Week...

[NewMarketSean]

The China example is hilarious because the expenditure will be to develop baseball culturally there before we can even begin to reap a benefit. In the Dominican, in Korea, and in Japan the game was picked up and developed internally. Those who started scouting there never had to spend on the speculative development of a competitive level of play that might someday be valuable.

There are over a billion people living in China...I am sure there are a couple of people playing it there already.

[Lucky Jim]

I enjoy this debate. I hope you are not taking it as combative. You are making excellent points.

I'm not missing risk calculations. I understand the speculative nature of international prospects. To go with your bubble theme - Intn'l player are the equivalent of penny stocks, futures or options. Whereas upper level free agents are your high yield, dividend blue chippers.

And a diverse investment portfolio would be say 80/20 between the 2.

But MacPhail doesn't go after either one. Here or in Chicago. #3 Media Market - mid range payroll almost every year he was there.

Castro was signed 3.5 weeks after MacPhail resigned. I put that up in a thread last week. Although I admit there are discrepancies between websites on those Castro dates. And I hope he did sign him. Gives me hope.

But its been written in Chicago press and MacPhail said it himself that he failed to develop positional prospects there just like here. Sano might've been a nice positional prospect for us. We won't know for a while.

While your definition of bubble is true in context of financial markets such as tech, oil, currently with gold due to inflation concerns, the dollar as its being propped up by Greece etc. - I'm not sure it applies to International Prospects quite the same. The % of hispanics playing in the MLB says that its not a bubble. Maybe its just the market has caught up to the value of the risk/reward.

Although if all of the high end international players fail - you may very well be correct. And that bubble could burst. But I doubt it personally.

And throwing a couple hundred grand at this draft player or that one is great. And I applaud MacPhail for doing it. It's still the cheapest way to build a team - hands down.

And that's because the Draft is not a free market as the player is forced to sign or go back to college.

But if the Draft was truly a free market (like the international market is) you'd see these contracts go for many multiples of what the international players are going for now.

Imagine if you had the Yankees in the running for the #1 player each year in the draft. What would Strassburg get...how about Harper?

How would MacPhail's risk/reward stack up then if he had to actually bid against teams for Wieters?

MacPhail would fail miserably under these situations just as I personally feel he is in the international markets.

Lucky Jim - let me ask you, in the small sample size we have - who do you think is a better GM given what they've done and had to work with.

Toronto GM or ours? Both are on the same mission.

I don't feel it's combative at all - or archly combative, at least. I disagree with the bolded assertions, however. The fact that some houses retained their value post housing-bubble does not detract from the fact that the market was driven by speculative forces. There are a lot of Dominican players in the league, it's true.

In 2006, there were more than 1500 players from the D.R. signed to MLB teams.

Approximate number of Dominican Republic-born currently signed to MLB organizations: 1,521 (of which 1,442 are minor leaguers)

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/worldclassic2006/news/story?id=2291226

There are about 200 "active" players - ranging from Hanley Ramirez stature to Rhadames Liz. But at any given time, there appear to be about 80 natives of the DR on active rosters.

BTW, isn't the fact that the draft isn't a free-market, and is likewise less susceptible to fraud and graft, an argument for prioritizing it over the international market?

Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't spend. I'm just offering a rebuttal to more simplistic arguments about our spending.

[hoosiers]

And that ends that.

They have to do a lot more. This idea of letting them off the hook for a slow improvement doesn't fly with me.

I expect more.

No one is letting them off any hook. Increasing the time of Stocky and his staff by 250+ days is really the equivalent of one additional FT person. We had an article last year that said we were on the verge of hiring an additional person. Hopefully, during the year there will be an additional hire or more.

We all want progress here across all fronts of international scouting - better facilities, increased spent across the range of signing bonuses and better presence in multiple countries. The question is how fast the progess will be made, how high the annual budget ultimately will be when we reach any sort of steady state and whether that budget includes $ for pursuing prospects at the higher end. As long as we are making progress towards our end state at a reasonable pace, I'm not going to criticize. If others want a faster pace, that's fine, but I think it's unreasonable to expect AM to have created a middle-of-the-pack international effort this soon. I think that could take another two or three years. Even then, we might not see the results for several more years.

[Lucky Jim]

The Orioles should absolutely try to get into China.

HOWEVER, what I am unsure about is will the politics over there allow it?

The politics are an issue. And there are likely numerous barriers to entry.

But the real issue is simply competition: there can't possibly be the kind of competition that allows one to judge talent. There's no stable metric.

[Sports Guy]

The politics are an issue. And there are likely numerous barriers to entry.

But the real issue is simply competition: there can't possibly be the kind of competition that allows one to judge talent. There's no stable metric.

Look, it wasn't that long ago that people thought there was no NBA talent in China and they are really started to make waves over there.

If you can start academies over there and start to try and teach, you are bound to find talent...Too many people for that not to happen.

And its not like Asia is some barren area for baseball talent. Its not like it is some foreign game to them.

[Lucky Jim]

Look, it wasn't that long ago that people thought there was no NBA talent in China and they are really started to make waves over there.

If you can start academies over there and start to try and teach, you are bound to find talent...Too many people for that not to happen.

And its not like Asia is some barren area for baseball talent. Its not like it is some foreign game to them.

China has been playing competitive international basketball since 1975. And it has produced all of five NBA players.

China didn't even compete in the Asian Baseball Championships consistently until the mid-to-late 1990s.

[Sports Guy]

China has been playing competitive international basketball since 1975. And it has produced all of five NBA players.

China didn't even compete in the Asian Baseball Championships consistently until the mid-to-late 1990s.

1) Were there real people over trying to develop them?

2) How serious were they about it?

3) The NBA players they have produced have been recent.

4) Even if it takes 10-15 years to start seeing benefits, wouldn't that be fine? Aren't you thinking long term here?

[Lucky Jim]

1) Were there real people over trying to develop them?

2) How serious were they about it?

3) The NBA players they have produced have been recent.

4) Even if it takes 10-15 years to start seeing benefits, wouldn't that be fine? Aren't you thinking long term here?

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything with China. I'm saying that it's an emerging market, and we're not in a position to take on the burden of "emerging" the market. It would be expensive, speculative, and long-term. Low-cost investment, presence, etc. should be the route, and then a push when the market is stable and less speculative.

These aren't either/or strategies. It's knowing what kind of investment to make and at what time to make it.

[hoosiers]

1) Were there real people over trying to develop them?

2) How serious were they about it?

3) The NBA players they have produced have been recent.

4) Even if it takes 10-15 years to start seeing benefits, wouldn't that be fine? Aren't you thinking long term here?

If you were GM for a day (a mighty risky proposition I might add ), and you were going to increase your international spend from 2009 by $1M between two additional scouts and increased prospect spend, how much of that $1M would you allocate to start a presence in China?

If you sign two players, where are they going to play? Are you going to buy land and build a facility? Do you know where in China would be a good location? One that, perhaps 10-15 years later, might be obsolete and need to be built again. Hire baseball and academic instructors?

You appear to see infrastructure and facilities as secondary issues behind the presumed most important issue - get into China as quickly as possible. That's a noble thought, but it seems the $ required to get an early presence in China would be better spent catching up to or surpassing other organizations in other parts of the world at this time. Frequently, early movers get surpassed by secondary movers who avoid the mistakes of the early guys.

[Lucky Jim]

If you were GM for a day (a mighty risky proposition I might add ), and you were going to increase your international spend from 2009 by $1M between two additional scouts and increased prospect spend, how much of that $1M would you allocate to start a presence in China?

If you sign two players, where are they going to play? Are you going to buy land and build a facility? Do you know where in China would be a good location? One that, perhaps 10-15 years later, might be obsolete and need to be built again. Hire baseball and academic instructors?

You appear to see infrastructure and facilities as secondary issues behind the presumed most important issue - get into China as quickly as possible. That's a noble thought, but it seems the $ required to get an early presence in China would be better spent catching up to or surpassing other organizations in other parts of the world at this time. Frequently, early movers get surpassed by secondary movers who avoid the mistakes of the early guys.

Right. My point exactly.

[BrunoCherrytown]

I don't feel it's combative at all - or archly combative, at least. I disagree with the bolded assertions, however. The fact that some houses retained their value post housing-bubble does not detract from the fact that the market was driven by speculative forces. There are a lot of Dominican players in the league, it's true.

In 2006, there were more than 1500 players from the D.R. signed to MLB teams.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/worldclassic2006/news/story?id=2291226

There are about 200 "active" players - ranging from Hanley Ramirez stature to Rhadames Liz. But at any given time, there appear to be about 80 natives of the DR on active rosters.

BTW, isn't the fact that the draft isn't a free-market, and is likewise less susceptible to fraud and graft, an argument for prioritizing it over the international market?

Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't spend. I'm just offering a rebuttal to more simplistic arguments about our spending.

But maybe the reason we don't spend is just as simplistic. We have a cheap owner and GM. I know many blow that off as "crazy talk."

The GM has been cheap based on payroll his whole career. The team budget rankings from all his years make that a reasonable assumption. Although he did have a high year I'm pretty sure. And it was his last year in Chicago. Maybe that left a bad taste in his mouth. Future Commish's probably aren't going to be aggressive spenders. But that's just me pulling an opinion out of my "you know what".

The owner made brilliant moves to basically create the #4 media market (combining DC and Bmore) in America with MASN and has 2 teams on it. And he hasn't spent any money since (and not seriously since the 90s). All while complaining about the #7 media market team's budget (Red Sox).

And while that has nothing to do with the topic at hand it may play into why we don't spend money on anything.

To your point. You are correct we should be focusing more putting money in the draft then international markets. I couldn't agree more. There are risks with age and bonus shaving and all those things internationally.

And unlike many posters, I liked the Hobgood pick. Signability or not. And I like we'll pay a couple hundred grand over slot for certain players.

These are good things. But like I said before - this is still the cheapest route.

While going overboard in the international market is unwise...our overly passive approach in my opinion is just as bad if not worse. We have money to spend. We don't. We don't spend it wisely or unwisely. We just don't spend it.

If we had gotten Sano - it doesn't mean we had to go spend on a "Sano" every year.

All reports say we could've had him and we had a chance to match the bid. Our scouts loved him - he was ranked the #1 international prospect - and we got sticker shock once again. This is not a good way to approach the market.

I'll cut it at that. Anything left I'd have to say is redundant (and much of what i have said is already).

Good points you made though Lucky Jim. I liked your analysis even if i didn't agree with some of it.

[Lucky Jim]

But maybe the reason we don't spend is just as simplistic. We have a cheap owner and GM. I know many blow that off as "crazy talk."

The GM has been cheap based on payroll his whole career. The team budget rankings from all his years make that a reasonable assumption. Although he did have a high year I'm pretty sure. And it was his last year in Chicago. Maybe that left a bad taste in his mouth. Future Commish's probably aren't going to be aggressive spenders. But that's just me pulling an opinion out of my "you know what".

The owner made brilliant moves to basically create the #4 media market (combining DC and Bmore) in America with MASN and has 2 teams on it. And he hasn't spent any money since (and not seriously since the 90s). All while complaining about the #7 media market team's budget (Red Sox).

And while that has nothing to do with the topic at hand it may play into why we don't spend money on anything.

To your point. You are correct we should be focusing more putting money in the draft then international markets. I couldn't agree more. There are risks with age and bonus shaving and all those things internationally.

And unlike many posters, I liked the Hobgood pick. Signability or not. And I like we'll pay a couple hundred grand over slot for certain players.

These are good things. But like I said before - this is still the cheapest route.

While going overboard in the international market is unwise...our overly passive approach in my opinion is just as bad if not worse. We have money to spend. We don't. We don't spend it wisely or unwisely. We just don't spend it.

If we had gotten Sano - it doesn't mean we had to go spend on a "Sano" every year.

All reports say we could've had him and we had a chance to match the bid. Our scouts loved him - he was ranked the #1 international prospect - and we got sticker shock once again. This is not a good way to approach the market.

I'll cut it at that. Anything left I'd have to say is redundant (and much of what i have said is already).

Good points you made though Lucky Jim. I liked your analysis even if i didn't agree with some of it.

I think most of us who are slow to condemn are only slow to condemn for now. I think when to spend is almost equally important as how and where to spend.

I can understand building infrastructure. I can understand waiting to leverage MLB FA signings. That doesn't mean that the team can go on forever without spending. It just means that I don't read as much into this silence as you do.

For now.

But yeah, it's all interesting stuff. For baseball geeks.

[Sports Guy]

If you were GM for a day (a mighty risky proposition I might add ), and you were going to increase your international spend from 2009 by $1M between two additional scouts and increased prospect spend, how much of that $1M would you allocate to start a presence in China?

If you sign two players, where are they going to play? Are you going to buy land and build a facility? Do you know where in China would be a good location? One that, perhaps 10-15 years later, might be obsolete and need to be built again. Hire baseball and academic instructors?

You appear to see infrastructure and facilities as secondary issues behind the presumed most important issue - get into China as quickly as possible. That's a noble thought, but it seems the $ required to get an early presence in China would be better spent catching up to or surpassing other organizations in other parts of the world at this time. Frequently, early movers get surpassed by secondary movers who avoid the mistakes of the early guys.

Completely misguided post...so its not really even worth spending another second of my life attempting to discuss something with someone who has no clue as to what you are saying.

[Lucky Jim]

Completely misguided post...so its not really even worth spending another second of my life attempting to discuss something with someone who has no clue as to what you are saying.

Hoosiers' post is spot-on, SG. He identifies very real issues w/ trying to "establish" and "promote" baseball in China. It might not encompass all of the issues, and all of the benefits, but it identifies real problems that need to be accounted for.

If you think it's misguided, you should offer something substantive. Otherwise - and I'm sure you'll say "I don't care" - it looks like you're ducking an argument you recognize you've lost.

[Sports Guy]

That post is spot-on, SG. He identifies very real issues w/ trying to "establish" and "promote" baseball in China.

If you think it's misguided, you should offer something substantive. Otherwise - and I'm sure you'll say "I don't care" - it looks like your ducking an argument you recognize you've lost.

No, he misrepresented what I would do or what i think...not the issues over there.

BTW, why do you feel it your responsibility to fight everyone else's battles?

My god, you are really turning into rshack very quickly.