BA's Ben Badler Interview Discussing Int'l Scouting

[Lucky Jim]

I guess that's a no. Interesting.

[DrungoHazewood]

My fear in all of this is that MacPhail has been passed by. It's a vague fear, only grounded in his statements about diminishing returns and my knowledge of history. But it's there.

Back in the 1920s teams really got started setting up farm systems. But a lot of teams thought it was a ridiculous expense, and just kept on doing things the way they'd been done in the past. They'd sign guys that the manager got tips on. They'd send scouts out to indy leagues and they'd write reports and the manager would review them, occasionally authorizing a $1000 bonus to sign some kid from Iowa. You may know these teams as the 1940s and 50s Senators, Pirates, Browns, and Phillies, among others. Terrible, terrible teams. They just didn't have half a chance when competing with teams like the Dodgers and Cardinals who had vast farm systems.

The point is that the game often passes by smart baseball folks who're accustomed to thinking the best practices of 10 years ago are still cutting edge, when they're actually hopelessly behind.

I hope this isn't the case with the O's. The evidence suggests otherwise.

[Flosman]

From Tony's story one of the things that I took was AM found the O's information systems to be horribly lacking and has spent a high level of resources and effort to try to bring it up to speed. AM made it sound as if the information was almost scattered inconsistant and unusable. In light of this is it not reasonable to try to get these systemic problems corrected prior to increasing the levels of data being gathered by the organization? For a guy that rarely outwardly puts the past under a horrible light I found his

comments really damning. It was made to seem that prior to his arrival the O's were little better than a group of people interested in baseball BSing about some players they have seen. But the proof will be evident in the near future. I also have heard Duke say that he thought AM was doing a goood job but there were not enough "good" baseball people in the organization to get the job done.

[Stotle]

I guess that's a no. Interesting.

What's the issue? How about you raise it and we can all discuss?

[Lucky Jim]

What's the issue? How about you raise it and we can all discuss?

I thought I did.

As for the first quote cited by Stotle: isn't this what the Orioles have done? And doesn't this support my questions regarding going after high-priced Int'l FA?

In fact, the bolded seems precisely the approach many of us have identified as a possible, rational approach by the O's. It also counsels against diving into the high-dollar prospects, who are suffering from inflated price-tags. We've already spent $500,000 on two prospects this year ($370K and $150K). My guess is we'll spend in six-figures on a couple more. And also sign 20-30 lower-priced ones. That seems to match up w/ what he's saying here. He's certainly not saying that we should be diving in after high-dollar players. Which is what a lot of folks around here have claimed to be the rational approach.

[Mackus]

I found this article really interesting, thanks for posting it.

[Stotle]

I thought I did.

Sorry -- didn't see you write that. My recollection was that he said a team doesn't have to spend $2MM on a player each year, but those not willing to spend low-6-figures are already behind and will fall back even more. I don't take away from it that teams should NOT be willing to spend big dollars for appropriate talent. Likewise, teams should not make statement signings (which I believe he also stated).

The key to making the correct decisions, of course, if making the right evaluations. And one of Badler's main points is his agreement in teams devoting more money to expanding the scope of scouting departments.

I don't disagree your "avoid top $$ and sign mid- to low-6-figures $$" would fit into what he's saying. I stand firm in thinking it's an overly-simplistic approach that will miss out on good talent up top. Note, he also says that as more teams devote more resources (and more teams in general get involved), the "bargains" will be more difficult to find.

[Arthur_Bryant]

Quoted in the OP:

The escalation of the market really hurts teams that have the antiquated notion that running an international program on a shoestring budget is still a viable option in today’s market...

Look, as long as players can sign when they are 16 years old, there are always going to be players who sign for $50,000 or so who will be late bloomers and turn into quality major leaguers.

... those bargains are going to be harder to find. They will still be there, but being willing to spend $500,000 on an international free agent and finding a bargain for $50,000 aren’t mutually exclusive–you can do both. That doesn’t mean a team has to spend $2 million every year on an international prospect, but the teams that aren’t willing to spend the money to sign prospects in the low to mid six-figure range have already fallen behind and will continue to do so going forward.

He's not ignoring it. He disagrees with it. He may very well be wrong. On the other hand, he's been in the business for 30 years - he has some familiarity with the intersection of quality of information and quantity of scouts.

As for the first quote cited by Stotle: isn't this what the Orioles have done? And doesn't this support my questions regarding going after high-priced Int'l FA?

In fact, the bolded seems precisely the approach many of us have identified as a possible, rational approach by the O's. It also counsels against diving into the high-dollar prospects, who are suffering from inflated price-tags. We've already spent $500,000 on two prospects this year ($370K and $150K). My guess is we'll spend in six-figures on a couple more. And also sign 20-30 lower-priced ones. That seems to match up w/ what he's saying here. He's certainly not saying that we should be diving in after high-dollar players. Which is what a lot of folks around here have claimed to be the rational approach.

I'm not sure that my takeaway from the Badler interview is the same as yours. I don't see a lot in there to validate the O's approach to improving the team by finding and signing Caribbean talent. There is validation for their "patience" and reluctance to commit to the big-ticket kids, but that's different.

He seems to imply, if not state outright, that value is going down. This suggests to me that a typical $150,000 bonus kid in 2010 is not 2005's $150,000 bonus kid. So there is perhaps less reason to be excited about the O's committing ~$1MM this year on three to five players -- if indeed they do. (So far it seems to be just half that, on two players). I know that there may be individual cases where a player's value is depressed for reasons unrelated to his age and talent, and AM may have identified a couple like that with his signings this month. But in general it looks to me as if teams are paying more for less. OTOH it's possible that the change in the O's scouting approach (bringing in stateside scouts to look at Caribbean players rather than relying on a couple of local scouts) has mitigated this effect.

As for shotgunning multiple 16 YOs in the $50,000 bracket... to me they're the equivalent of penny stocks, if not a lottery ticket. Go splurge if you feel lucky, and cross your fingers. But given that the system of identifying talent has become more sophisticated and efficient, this looks to me like an almost pointless way to spend toward putting significant individual talent in the system.

I know this: there is a good chance that Jose Iglesias is in the Red Sox' starting lineup in 2012. If he is, and if he stays there for a couple of years, nobody is going to look at him and talk about how overvalued Caribbean free agents have become.

And just as an aside, I am not sure that MacPhail's 30 years of experience is always an advantage, in a business where newcomers with a fresh approach have lately often outflanked the traditional thinkers.

[Lucky Jim]

Sorry - didn't mean to leave this conversation alone. There's just not much to say. Everyone reads into comments what they want to see/hear/read. Me included, I guess.

As for Arthur's comment about Iglesias - maybe he's a success, maybe he's a not. Surely, if he is, no one will look at him and see wasted dollars. Nor will they be able to identify the wasted dollars in any single player - it will be the boatload of relatively high-end prospects who have fizzled in the Red Sox system that embody the inflation inherent in the system. But you know that, I imagine. Which makes it all the stranger that that's your example.

[Stotle]

Sorry - didn't mean to leave this conversation alone. There's just not much to say. Everyone reads into comments what they want to see/hear/read. Me included, I guess.

Definitely give you points for creativity and an "A" for effort! If I reaaaaaally work for it, I can see your interpretation.

[Arthur_Bryant]

As for Arthur's comment about Iglesias - maybe he's a success, maybe he's a not. Surely, if he is, no one will look at him and see wasted dollars. Nor will they be able to identify the wasted dollars in any single player - it will be the boatload of relatively high-end prospects who have fizzled in the Red Sox system that embody the inflation inherent in the system. But you know that, I imagine. Which makes it all the stranger that that's your example.

I use Iglesias because he's a player I would have liked the O's to strongly consider: not based on any extensive analysis on my part, but because he seemed to stand out by being more experienced (hence more predictable and with a shorter path to MLB than a 16 YO), and playing a premium position, one that the Orioles will need to fill in 2011.

Now, if I knew for sure that the O's had looked closely at him and had been willing to pay a substantial figure, but decided that the eventual price didn't justify the package, then I would have no beef. I would still be disappointed, but that's different.

But I really doubt whether things ever got to that stage. The O's record of a total lack of activity at the upper end of the Caribbean market seems to imply a long-standing blanket decision not to participate, which would mean that there was little or no chance that the O's ever seriously considered Iglesias. In essence, the O's ceded him to the Red Sox without a fight. And that ticks me off.

You are correct that no single player represents the total cost or value of participating in this market. But I stand by my original statement, which was that if the Red Sox end up with a quality starting shortstop in his mid-20s (and yes, it hasn't happened yet), their decision to participate in the market despite the recent inflation of prices will look pretty smart. And we will legitimately be able to ask how well the O's have done at filling their SS hole with the money they chose not to risk.

[Lucky Jim]

Definitely give you points for creativity and an "A" for effort! If I reaaaaaally work for it, I can see your interpretation.

This pretty clearly supports my point. We see what we want to see.

What he said was the upper part of the market is inflated and out-of-kilter with the way (smart) teams are valuing the players:

I think it’s forcing certain teams to be more patient regardless of whether they are big or small market clubs. If the Red Sox and Yankees wanted to drop $3 million on a player in this market, they have the money to do so, but you don’t see them doing that because a lot of the players’ asking prices aren’t congruent with how they value the players. The escalation of the market really hurts teams that have the antiquated notion that running an international program on a shoestring budget is still a viable option in today’s market.

These are the very points many of us made: (i) patience; (ii) inflated market.

No one - no one - has argued that we shouldn't invest in any part of the market as a general rule, that we shouldn't invest more in the market in general. All we said was that slow growth wasn't inherently irrational, and that shying away from (but not writing off) the top-end talent for mid-level and below could also be rational. Both points seem to be reflected in this piece. Clearly, the "shoe-string" budget the O's operated on for years wouldn't play. But it's not as if they haven't ramped up spending. They just haven't done it fast enough for the liking of some.

I use Iglesias because he's a player I would have liked the O's to strongly consider: not based on any extensive analysis on my part, but because he seemed to stand out by being more experienced (hence more predictable and with a shorter path to MLB than a 16 YO), and playing a premium position, one that the Orioles will need to fill in 2011.

Now, if I knew for sure that the O's had looked closely at him and had been willing to pay a substantial figure, but decided that the eventual price didn't justify the package, then I would have no beef. I would still be disappointed, but that's different.

But I really doubt whether things ever got to that stage. The O's record of a total lack of activity at the upper end of the Caribbean market seems to imply a long-standing blanket decision not to participate, which would mean that there was little or no chance that the O's ever seriously considered Iglesias. In essence, the O's ceded him to the Red Sox without a fight. And that ticks me off.

You are correct that no single player represents the total cost or value of participating in this market. But I stand by my original statement, which was that if the Red Sox end up with a quality starting shortstop in his mid-20s (and yes, it hasn't happened yet), their decision to participate in the market despite the recent inflation of prices will look pretty smart. And we will legitimately be able to ask how well the O's have done at filling their SS hole with the money they chose not to risk.

They apparently valued Sano at $1.5+m. I think they will rarely move into the upper-level (largely due to the inflated market) but I don't see that as supporting this theory of a blanket decision.

[Arthur_Bryant]

They apparently valued Sano at $1.5+m. I think they will rarely move into the upper-level (largely due to the inflated market) but I don't see that as supporting this theory of a blanket decision.

If we're going by published reports (or lack of same) then they apparently valued Iglesias at zero. I never saw any indication that they were seriously in on him, though I could have missed it.

If we're going to leave published reports out of it, then the record speaks for itself. Until they actually make a move, their absence from the market is going to look categorical to me.

[Stotle]

This pretty clearly supports my point. We see what we want to see.

What he said was the upper part of the market is inflated and out-of-kilter with the way (smart) teams are valuing the players:

These are the very points many of us made: (i) patience; (ii) inflated market.

No one - no one - has argued that we shouldn't invest in any part of the market as a general rule, that we shouldn't invest more in the market in general. All we said was that slow growth wasn't inherently irrational, and that shying away from (but not writing off) the top-end talent for mid-level and below could also be rational. Both points seem to be reflected in this piece. Clearly, the "shoe-string" budget the O's operated on for years wouldn't play. But it's not as if they haven't ramped up spending. They just haven't done it fast enough for the liking of some.

They apparently valued Sano at $1.5+m. I think they will rarely move into the upper-level (largely due to the inflated market) but I don't see that as supporting this theory of a blanket decision.

Haha. Creative save. Bottom line is teams, including those generally regarded as "smart" teams, are still giving some seven-figure bonuses. And you still ignore the basic fact that in order for your proposed strategy to work you need to make GOOD decisions. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are going to have a hard time out-scouting and out-good-decision-making (trademark) your competition if you are heavily outmanned on the evaluation side.

Badler's point seems to simply be that with more teams looking to get involved, it is harder to find bargains AND some teams are failing to make good decisions because they are more concerned with making a splash than making a good decision.

You may think all of this fits in with your points (which you may also think could serve as some rationale for BAL's pacing in this field), but I can't see a logical A-->B-->C with that line of thinking. From what we've seen over the last three years, and heard from AM, what makes you think BAL has now, or will soon have, the evaluative foundation to consistently make GOOD decisions down there as it grows into an even more competitively scouted region?

I'm always happy to bat these ideas back and forth. I agree your approach has merit (and is the logical approach that basically everyone on here supports, despite the desire for a small handful to claim it is THEIR personal battle cry). But taking Badler's comments and citing them as possible support for what BAL is doing is shoehorning at its very finest.

All in good fun -- I look forward to hearing what it is that I'm missing.