Pirates sign 6 Dominicans

[stuckin82]

Just sayin, O's are the wallflower

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=9421

[stuckin82]

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=9399

It's like a bad echo chamber. And the D-Backs have weak attendance and a market hit badly by the housing market, yet....

[JTrea81]

Just sayin, O's are the wallflower

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=9421

Considering the Astros are cash strapped, this should say something...

[Araqnid]

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=9399

It's like a bad echo chamber. And the D-Backs have weak attendance and a market hit badly by the housing market, yet....

Plus Arizona hates Hispanic people...:wedge:

Seriously though, I'm not TOO bummed about our lack of Dominican signings. My perspective is this: most foreign signings turn out to be huge stabs in the dark, and while a great many of them have raw potential, it doesn't seem like a high percentage of guys put it together.

If we had a FO with the competency of any of the decent teams, I'd seriously have 0 problem with us ignoring players outside of the US, because I would trust them. The problem is, I don't trust that the O's know what their doing, and might seriously miss a great prospect...

[Lucky Jim]

Right. Sorry, I re-read what I wrote and realize that came off as smart-assed. I was honestly trying to say that I have not seriously looked into the full spectrum of players signed vs. how they turn out (both by dollar and risk profile) so I don't have a clue. But I recall posters saying that the top tier guys are not good investments for a multitude of reasons (including age issues, steroids, and over-hypedness). I cannot confirm either way if these claims are true, but I've read them.

Agreed that at least I, myself, have no real idea of what the best utilization of international dollars would be. Also agree that, as far as impact talent is concerned, what BAL has done in the past does not seem to be working. I believe RZNJ has pointed to some indicators that there might be at least some tangible improvement at the DSL Level.

This is pretty clearly directed to me. Just as clearly, it mis-characterizes my position.

I used those factors to explain why it is possible that a decision not to invest in the highest-dollar IFAs could be rational. These risk factors are clear. The reward has never - as far as I can tell - been effectively explained/analyzed.

All I ever asked for was proof that highest-dollar IFA signings were as rewarding as the risk demands. If you want to critique the team for not doing something specifically, I think you need to support your argument with some kind of analysis of the return on investment. You've made the "merit" part of the argument for big signings before:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2009258&postcount=55

Like Mackus said, most of us who don't damn the O's specifically for not signing the highest of high-profile guys concede that more spending overall is necessary.

[Tony-OH]

Like any amateur signing there are risks and rewards with each one. Good scouting in those areas can offset some of that risk. There are always going to be busts, just like there are in the US Amateur draft, but there will also be possible huge rewards. To sit on the sidelines because you are not willing to take the risk means you will never gain the rewards.

[Lucky Jim]

Like any amateur signing there are risks and rewards with each one. Good scouting in those areas can offset some of that risk. There are always going to be busts, just like there are in the US Amateur draft, but there will also be possible huge rewards. To sit on the sidelines because you are not willing to take the risk means you will never gain the rewards.

I agree absolutely. Which is why I noted - like Mackus - that the total investment (in people, hours, and dollars) needs to be ramped up. Where that investment is directed - where the focus of (on quantity of mid-level versus fewer high-dollar, etc.) that expenditure resides - is a matter of choice. Hopefully, informed choice. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be exceptions, of course. Having your plan be mid-level in focus doens't mean that you never throw top-dollar at someone. Or shouldn't.

I'm not willing to say that the market for top-end DR talent, for instance, isn't inflated. That doesn't mean there's not value, but simply because other teams are willing to spend $3m on Miguel Sano doesn't - to me - make Sano worth $3m. Like others, I'd like to see more rapid improvements. On the other hand, I can see why we might go slow. And I can see some improvement. As long as it happens, and a plan is logically and fully enacted, I guess I'm more okay with it than others. I understand that frequently patience is viewed less as a virtue and more as a concession, though.

[Stotle]

This is pretty clearly directed to me. Just as clearly, it mis-characterizes my position.

I used those factors to explain why it is possible that a decision not to invest in the highest-dollar IFAs could be rational. These risk factors are clear. The reward has never - as far as I can tell - been effectively explained/analyzed.

All I ever asked for was proof that highest-dollar IFA signings were as rewarding as the risk demands. If you want to critique the team for not doing something specifically, I think you need to support your argument with some kind of analysis of the return on investment. You've made the "merit" part of the argument for big signings before:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2009258&postcount=55

Like Mackus said, most of us who don't damn the O's specifically for not signing the highest of high-profile guys concede that more spending overall is necessary.

LJ, I don't even remember you having a position on the matter. So it wasn't directed at you at all. Just a faceless position that has been put out there countless times (I honestly don't remember who posts what, most of the time).

Not...all...about...you...

As far as supporting evidence that high-priced signings are a necessity when tackling the international market and building a solid amateur talent acquisition strategy, there are orgs that all but ignore the market and do fine focusing on domestic and inexpensive international. Different ways to go about nearly everything. I just don't want to be lectured to that BAL is AHEAD of the curve because they are dodging the high-priced latin bonus babies.

The narrative that has been created to "explain" avoiding the high-priced kids is convenient, but wreaks of streetlight analysis. Might be true, but I have yet to see someone make a convincing argument that high priced kids should, as a group, be avoided.

[Stotle]

I agree absolutely. Which is why I noted - like Mackus - that the total investment (in people, hours, and dollars) needs to be ramped up. Where that investment is directed - where the focus of (on quantity of mid-level versus fewer high-dollar, etc.) that expenditure resides - is a matter of choice. Hopefully, informed choice. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be exceptions, of course. Having your plan be mid-level in focus doens't mean that you never throw top-dollar at someone. Or shouldn't.

I'm not willing to say that the market for top-end DR talent, for instance, isn't inflated. That doesn't mean there's not value, but simply because other teams are willing to spend $3m on Miguel Sano doesn't - to me - make Sano worth $3m. Like others, I'd like to see more rapid improvements. On the other hand, I can see why we might go slow. And I can see some improvement. As long as it happens, and a plan is logically and fully enacted, I guess I'm more okay with it than others. I understand that frequently patience is viewed less as a virtue and more as a concession, though.

Oversimplified -- in some instances patience is a requirement. I don't care if BAL says they are going to wait a few seasons before seriously ramping-up international efforts. Fine, I can get behind addressing other systemic issues first. But the idea that in order to do things right on the international scene you need five or six years of slow progression is silly.

[Mackus]

But the idea that in order to do things right on the international scene you need five or six years of slow progression is silly.

I agree with this.

In fact, if it was that difficult to do things right in the international scene, with that type of buildup required, then we should be throwing all of our money at 1-3 big time bonus kids. Those guys are well known, other teams and independent publications have done the hard work and scouted them for us. Pick a couple you like the best and spend your player budget on them in the couple years you are spending setting up facilities and hiring scouts down there who will be able to find some lower priced kids with hopefully similar upside as the higher-priced ones. Then, once you are all set up with a nice facility of your own, go ahead and start diversifying your investments across a broader type of player and deeper number of players.

[Lucky Jim]

I agree with this.

In fact, if it was that difficult to do things right in the international scene, with that type of buildup required, then we should be throwing all of our money at 1-3 big time bonus kids. Those guys are well known, other teams and independent publications have done the hard work and scouted them for us. Pick a couple you like the best and spend your player budget on them in the couple years you are spending setting up facilities and hiring scouts down there who will be able to find some lower priced kids with hopefully similar upside as the higher-priced ones. Then, once you are all set up with a nice facility of your own, go ahead and start diversifying your investments across a broader type of player and deeper number of players.

I'm not so sure, actually. This article comes to mind:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/international-affairs/2006/261870.html

Stotle - whether intended or otherwise, those are precisely the arguments that I've articulated again and again (and linked supporting, if anecdotal evidence for), just not to the conclusion that I've drawn. I've never really seen many people address it. And the folks who defend any part of the O's international efforts are few and far between on here.

Noting, of course, that I'm defending them very narrowly.

[Stotle]

I'm not so sure, actually. This article comes to mind:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/international-affairs/2006/261870.html

Stotle - whether intended or otherwise, those are precisely the arguments that I've articulated again and again (and linked supporting, if anecdotal evidence for), just not to the conclusion that I've drawn. I've never really seen many people address it. And the folks who defend any part of the O's international efforts are few and far between on here.

Noting, of course, that I'm defending them very narrowly.

LJ, I'm just saying I have no clue if it was your opinion or not, and either way could not care less who the originator of the argument happens to be.

I haven't delved into great detail on the matter, but feel strong about two general points:

1. No one has put forth a convincing argument as to why the top international kids should be ignored -- BAL is not "ahead of the curve" by shying away from those kids according to any factual set of circumstances (though in reality I have no idea, having not studied the matter thoroughly).

2. It shouldn't take five years of careful planning to get involved (if you actually want to get involved) in the int'l market -- if you are operating as if it does you are wasting resources (either time or money, neither of which BAL can afford if it wants to be taken seriously in the AL East).

I could respect an organization that says "As a generality, we think there are diminishing returns after you pump 'so' amount of money into the int'l market, so we are focused on getting a handful of guys we really trust and just letting them loose. Some years that will mean we're in on big ticket items, and others we are focused on a different cross-section. Either way, we have gone out of our way to put highly qualified people in place to farm the region -- we're confident the return will validate the investment."

Hell, find two scouts who are at the top of the pecking order and throw a high six-figure salary at each of them. Have them report to a senior evaluator responsible for int'l scouting. Pour your budget into making your farm system int'l-friendly (classes on english, cultural integration, host families with latin american ties, etc.) and sell the players on THAT, rather than your facility. Take advantage of LEAGUES set-up to show you a huge swath of players.

What I read/hear from BAL just sounds like, "We are doing this the way that everyone else has done it in the past and in order to catch-up to where they are, it will take a long time." BS! Come up with a better way to do it, or a way to grab some leverage in the market. If you can't think of a way to do it differently and improve on the matter, bring in minds who are smart enough to come up with these new approaches.

DISCLAIMER -- I KNOW OF AT LEAST TWO POSTERS WHO WILL READ THIS POST AS ME STATING I HAVE BETTER IDEAS THAN THE ORGANIZATION AS TO HOW TO SET-UP AN INTERNATIONAL PRESENCE. MY "SUGGESTIONS" WERE JUST EXAMPLES (SO SPARE ME THE EMAILS, PMs, AND SMARMY REPLIES IN THE THREAD). I HAVE NO BELIEF THAT MY SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS ARE WHAT BAL SHOULD BE DOING, OR THAT I AM SMARTER THAN ANYONE IN CHARGE. I AM ONLY STATING THAT FIVE YEARS OR SO IS TOO LONG FOR ALMOST ANY SORT OF TURNAROUND. IF IT TAKES THAT LONG, YOU NEED BETTER IDEAS.

[Lucky Jim]

LJ, I'm just saying I have no clue if it was your opinion or not, and either way could not care less who the originator of the argument happens to be.

I haven't delved into great detail on the matter, but feel strong about two general points:

1. No one has put forth a convincing argument as to why the top international kids should be ignored -- BAL is not "ahead of the curve" by shying away from those kids according to any factual set of circumstances (though in reality I have no idea, having not studied the matter thoroughly).

2. It shouldn't take five years of careful planning to get involved (if you actually want to get involved) in the int'l market -- if you are operating as if it does you are wasting resources (either time or money, neither of which BAL can afford if it wants to be taken seriously in the AL East).

I could respect an organization that says "As a generality, we think there are diminishing returns after you pump 'so' amount of money into the int'l market, so we are focused on getting a handful of guys we really trust and just letting them loose. Some years that will mean we're in on big ticket items, and others we are focused on a different cross-section. Either way, we have gone out of our way to put highly qualified people in place to farm the region -- we're confident the return will validate the investment."

Hell, find two scouts who are at the top of the pecking order and throw a high six-figure salary at each of them. Have them report to a senior evaluator responsible for int'l scouting. Pour your budget into making your farm system int'l-friendly (classes on english, cultural integration, host families with latin american ties, etc.) and sell the players on THAT, rather than your facility. Take advantage of LEAGUES set-up to show you a huge swath of players.

What I read/hear from BAL just sounds like, "We are doing this the way that everyone else has done it in the past and in order to catch-up to where they are, it will take a long time." BS! Come up with a better way to do it, or a way to grab some leverage in the market. If you can't think of a way to do it differently and improve on the matter, bring in minds who are smart enough to come up with these new approaches.

DISCLAIMER -- I KNOW OF AT LEAST TWO POSTERS WHO WILL READ THIS POST AS ME STATING I HAVE BETTER IDEAS THAN THE ORGANIZATION AS TO HOW TO SET-UP AN INTERNATIONAL PRESENCE. MY "SUGGESTIONS" WERE JUST EXAMPLES (SO SPARE ME THE EMAILS, PMs, AND SMARMY REPLIES IN THE THREAD). I HAVE NO BELIEF THAT MY SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS ARE WHAT BAL SHOULD BE DOING, OR THAT I AM SMARTER THAN ANYONE IN CHARGE. I AM ONLY STATING THAT FIVE YEARS OR SO IS TOO LONG FOR ALMOST ANY SORT OF TURNAROUND. IF IT TAKES THAT LONG, YOU NEED BETTER IDEAS.

I'm not saying that it's personal. I'm stating why I'm clarifying the argument. That's it.

Whoever the phantoms* who haunt you w/ PMs are, I don't know.

*I'm not saying they don't exist, mind you. Just to be clear. I just mean they're unnamed.

[Stotle]

I'm not saying that it's personal. I'm stating why I'm clarifying the argument. That's it.

Whoever the phantoms* who haunt you w/ PMs are, I don't know.

*I'm not saying they don't exist, mind you. Just to be clear. I just mean they're unnamed.

Understood -- I get leeway today since I found out I missed the reciprocity deadline by three months and have to re-take the BAR in Wisconsin. Yuck.

[Lucky Jim]

Understood -- I get leeway today since I found out I missed the reciprocity deadline by three months and have to re-take the BAR in Wisconsin. Yuck.

Oh, man. Giant leeway. Sorry.