Yeah; unfortunately it looks like MLB's going to move in the opposite direction by bringing in a draft format for internationals. It's not just a matter of equitable distribution/fairness, but ultimately one of producing enough top-flight talent; the current system encourages great young american athletes to pursue football or basketball rather than baseball. Andrew McCuthen wrote a great piece that touched on this over at Jeter's new site recently.nvalvo said:
Yoan Moncada signs with Red Sox($30 Million)
- Thread starter Darnell's Son
- Start date
mauidano said:
Well, duh - that's literally the point of the draft: distribute talent to bad teams and depress starting income.
It took a Cuban kid getting a truckful of money for the dipshit American kids to realize owners don't have their best monetary interests in mind on draft day? That's probably how we wound up here in the first place.
Kids are a) stupid and b) slow to realize that getting millions of dollars is being cheap.
It's no different in most jobs, Eg investment management people get upset when people of a similar talent (in their mind) get more than them, despite them up to that point being happy.
The illusion of fairness matters.
It's no different in most jobs, Eg investment management people get upset when people of a similar talent (in their mind) get more than them, despite them up to that point being happy.
The illusion of fairness matters.
I think that's exactly it. Because Moncada is being billed as an "amateur" signing, despite having played professionally in Cuba at 17 (with a .414 OBP!), it now looks like signing bonuses in the draft are ridiculously low. MLB teams would have been better off if they emphasized that Moncada really is far more proven at this point than almost any U.S. draftee has been. I would expect that the agents will put a full court press on the players' union to get big increases in the top 10 draft slots and in the international signing pool if a worldwide draft isn't implemented. Of course, as others have said, all unions are usually pretty good at what is sometimes short-sighted bargaining for the benefit of current members at the expense of future ones.LondonSox said:
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
MikeM said:
That's an interesting question, but after some thought, I don't think that's the case. The biggest constraints on the Sox building a team are twofold: the luxury-tax threshold for major-league salaries (with resultant impact on the FA pool), and the ability to get top young amateur talent into the system. Those are the only two resources that have a hard limit (well, that and the 9 lineup spots and 25 roster spots, I suppose). John Henry and co are clearly making plenty of money, and so the team's willingness to spend money isn't an issue. But we only have a limited amount of ML salary that we can really pay before it starts handicapping our future (via the LT), and a very limited access to the top picks (because we usually don't draft early in the 1st round, and because there's a draft we can't just outbid everyone for the best talent like the pre-1965 Yankees).
So given that those are our hard constraints, and that we're at a disadvantage in the draft area all else being equal (because we're not the TB Rays with a 2-3-year contending window every 10 years or so and top-5 picks the rest of the time), where do we find value? Where are the loopholes, the opportunities for incremental spending to yield incremental ML-roster talent? As this signing (and Castillo to a lesser extent, and the various signings of top internationals around the league) illustrates, the international amateur pool is probably the only place right now where we can leverage an unfair advantage.
Does this affect our ability to sign elite MLB talent? Well, Hanley and Panda both have 90 million arguments against that proposition. But even beyond that, let's think about it logically: signing bonuses paid to amateurs don't affect either of our two most limited resources. We're not constrained by total overall organization spend, because (and I'm just imputing this from the evidence here) clearly the business side is doing just fine at generating revenue to match. So what resource might the int'l amateur pool be crowding out? FO resources and Ben's time? Seems unlikely to me.
To me, the simplest explanation is that the greatest value (in terms of player performance exceeding that player's net cost to the team) is found in pre-FA talent, and so it's worth taking some player-development risk on that in order to get opportunity to collect that value. And that risk is even more minor once you consider that unless a player graduates to the majors, they're not taking a roster spot away from anyone - so the amateurs you really want to use this resource on are the absolute-top-of-the-market ones, because anything less than that probably won't beat out our current player pipeline by enough performance to matter.
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Well, for the SoSH take, look no further than the poll evaluating the pitching moves the week after the Lester decision. SoSH liked the Miley deal, loved the Porcello deal, and saw the Lester sweepstakes as buyer's-remorse waiting to happen and was greatly relieved we didn't win the bidding. I would say Ben has excellent credit at the bank of fandom support and trust. And thank Cthulhu for that.
MikeM said:
Just to build slightly on the point above - it wouldn't seem to be that elite MLB proven talent is being underestimated - it's more that it's sticky, and very hard to extract from other teams who have it. It's identified and valued, but it can only be access by the team the owns the rights to it (at least until FA). Players have a tendency to peak in their late-20s, generally whilst still under arbitration control, or during their first major league contract - which may have bought out their arb and initial FA years. Hence once that talent is within another team, it becomes pretty much impossible to access it, because it can't be bought with cash. The only times that talent can be bought is when it becomes a FA (often when the talent starts to decline), or before it gets "stuck" in a different team - hence spending in the international market.
It's a very interesting contrast to the soccer transfer market, where cash is king. A team with a huge budget will always be able to pay enough money to buy talent from a smaller budget team - there's no requirement to trade other talent, just to hand over bags of money. Hence the top talent ends up clustered in the richest 10-20 clubs in the world. Baseball (and American sports in general) have a totally different premise, and actually have very restrictive labor markets where talent becomes much less clustered than in soccer. The Sox are taking advantage of a small loophole (soon to be closed though the international draft) where money makes all the difference.
pockmeister said:
The odd thing is that this recognition hasn't affected the over-30 FA market. You'd think Sherzer would be kicking himself for turning down 6/144. Instead the Nationals pony up 7/210. (counterpoint - Sherzer didn't get 8/240 from the Yankees).
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Hagios said:
Scherzer. Probably derived from the Italian word scherzo, meaning "joke", which is what that contract was.
Part of the disconnect with the FA market is that teams are paying for past performance rather than future expectation. That's fine and well-understood. But another part the misconception, I believe, is that other GMs are acting as if elite FA talent is riskless. That you don't need to adjust for injury risk, general decline and variance, and whatever it is that caused, say, Papelbon's K-rate to plummet. That there's no opportunity cost from keeping young, cost-controlled players off the roster. And you might think all teams would keep that in mind, but if so, you'd probably see shorter contracts, not just lower AAVs.
Of course, we're all arguing this from a BBOps perspective, not accounting for the increased marketability and revenue potential of a proven star. It may be that these teams are acting rationally from a P&L point of view, despite it appearing irrational from a long-term win-equity point of view. But if so, I'm glad that we've got an ownership that is happy to under-weight those considerations in favor of more flexible roster management (or, perhaps, that they've got such a devoted fanbase that it doesn't matter who they run out there or plaster on the airwaves and billboards so long as the team generally wins). God bless the Punto trade, and the lessons we learned from it.
MentalDisabldLst said:
Actually, I think the greatest value is found in the not-quite-elite players and it seems to me that both Cherington and Dan Duquette (and some others) are figuring out that a team can put together a team of all above-average players that will offer good value and give a team flexibility to add at the All-star break to make a run through the playoffs.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Raising the floor versus raising the ceiling. It's easier to add wins from the bottom of your roster. That's not to say that it's never a good choice to try and add to the top of the roster, and you can always replace the 25th man with an All Star caliber player for a big boost, but yeah, there's a lot of value in very good but not excellent players right now.
Exactly! Value per win is not linear from team to team or even from player to player on the same team. We can't just use the standard value of a win. We need to look at the entire picture. Player A is going to be worth more to a team if what he brings will get them over the hump and get that particular team into the play offs than the same player would to a team that is trying to reach the 80 win plateau.MentalDisabldLst said:
I've split the moderating arguments out to Backwash; volume's low enough right now that heavy-duty thread policing isn't needed in threads and is actually distracting from the content.
I'll chip in quickly. I rarely post because of the time zone I am in, and I accept I have little to add most of the time. That is my strength. I don't post. Last year once a day I would have post ready then delete it because it usually was just an echo. I don't know how many pages the Hamels thread is but, Jesus nothing happened. But day after day it had more posts. I mostly post in game threads. That's the place for enthusiasm and me too stuff.
Full disclosure during the Carl Crawford era I polluted the board with vitriol and was correctly mocked and belittled until I stopped.
Full disclosure during the Carl Crawford era I polluted the board with vitriol and was correctly mocked and belittled until I stopped.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
It's not just easier, but it's cheaper. And teams that trust their scouting and do it intelligently can give themselves a nice advantage there.
You could say that the Sox feel that way about their starting pitchers. Instead of "Spahn and Sain and pray for rain" you spread out the quality over greater numbers instead of concentrating it at the (expensive) top of the rotation.
The Yankees apparently have (had?) a different philosophy than the Sox, concentrating wholly on proven major leaguers versus "risky" young talent.
Let's look at some of their acquisitions on the 2104 team and their contracts:
McCann: 30 yrs and $85M
Teixeira: 34 yrs and $180M
Roberts: 36 yrs and $2M
Ellsbury: 30 yrs and $153M
Suzuki: 40 yrs and $2M
Beltran: 37 yrs and $45M
Headley: 30 yrs and $52M
Soriano: 38 yrs and $18M
Rodriguez: 100 dog years and $2 Billion
Kuroda: 39 yrs old and $16M
Sabathia: 33 yrs and $182M
Tanaka: a child at 25 yrs and $155M
Now this attitude has probably changed for 2015 (I don't follow them closely enough), but missing out on 19 year old Moncada over a couple of million makes no sense, particularly with what everyone says is a lousy minor league system.
Inexplicable to me.
Let's look at some of their acquisitions on the 2104 team and their contracts:
McCann: 30 yrs and $85M
Teixeira: 34 yrs and $180M
Roberts: 36 yrs and $2M
Ellsbury: 30 yrs and $153M
Suzuki: 40 yrs and $2M
Beltran: 37 yrs and $45M
Headley: 30 yrs and $52M
Soriano: 38 yrs and $18M
Rodriguez: 100 dog years and $2 Billion
Kuroda: 39 yrs old and $16M
Sabathia: 33 yrs and $182M
Tanaka: a child at 25 yrs and $155M
Now this attitude has probably changed for 2015 (I don't follow them closely enough), but missing out on 19 year old Moncada over a couple of million makes no sense, particularly with what everyone says is a lousy minor league system.
Inexplicable to me.
Spending on the future sounds right to me, but there's a lot of money riding on pure projection. The Red Sox are blowing three years' wad in the free agent market, the Cuban market, and the young, durable sinkerballer market. That comes to a lot of money shots and stockpiled talents, the like of which we shall not see for several years to come.
This has been the best offseason since 2011. :unsure2:
This has been the best offseason since 2011. :unsure2:
geoduck no quahog said:
*chortles*
Mind boggling that they didn't deem Moncada worthy of that extra money.
If I remember correctly didn't Bud want a worldwide draft at some point? I would think this makes the most sense overall. You can split the regular draft and the international one as well I guess but keeping it at one draft enables a uniform bonus structure. The only players that probably wouldn't be involved are the ones under contract with Japanese clubs due to the agreements with NPB. But sure the young guys have a right to be pissed about bonuses and the cap on them. It's not like the days of JD Drew anymore.Plympton91 said:
In theory I think suppressing the signing bonuses has a hand in some guys signing earlier than usual to make up for the extra cash they didn't get during the draft. I'm referring to arbitration etc...however if you're an elite talent like Trout it doesn't matter where you're drafted you will get paid no matter what.
The expectations of an international draft is why so many teams blew the doors off the caps this year. As they expect it's not two years away. And given so many did at once it would seem likely that the view is fairly well spread.
Apologies if this was posted already (frankly I'm shocked if it hasn't, but I can't find it), there's a great little interview with Moncada over at Fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/fangraphs-audio-an-informal-conversation-w-yoan-moncada/). They talk about all sorts of stuff in a really informal setting. I thought it was cool.
flymrfreakjar said:
This is a great listen. Thanks for sharing it. He seems like a fun guy and I thought some of his responses were pretty wise for a 19 year old kid.
In response to being asked what kind of hitter he was, he said he was a power hitter, but that he had a great eye. Then he followed up by pointing out that the quality of pitching over here is much higher and that he would need time to adjust.
When asked what position he wanted to play he said his first love is second base, but that he'll play anywhere they ask him to.
He comes across as confident in his abilities, but humble and grateful for the opportunities in front of him. If this interview is any indication, I think we're going to enjoy rooting for him.
Just finished watching WPRI's newsmakers online. This week's guest was Jim Skeffington, talking about the purchase of the pawsox and possible reloaction. (interesting to hear some more details for those who care) but at the very end he says "By the way, wasn't it nice of my partners to invest $60 million in a young superstar, who'll be playing in Pawtucket this year."
Can't iamgine it has any merit but interesting given that he talks to LL "daily"
Can't iamgine it has any merit but interesting given that he talks to LL "daily"
According to a league source, the delay is just a matter of the Red Sox awaiting the results of the drug testing administered to Moncada.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/41921/sox-await-results-of-drug-testing-for-moncada?ex_cid=espnapi_public
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/41921/sox-await-results-of-drug-testing-for-moncada?ex_cid=espnapi_public
E5 Yaz said:
Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass?
Moncada: "Wait, what? Steroids are illegal? Since like when?"
Kull said:
That is a question. Suppose a player came from a country where steroids or other drugs that are controlled here are legal; never used them in this country, but failed a drug test on his arrival. Can he be punished? This is strictly a hypothetical question and I am in no way suggesting that it applies to Moncado or Cuba but I'm curious as to what you all think.
charlieoscar said:
Moncada left Cuba last June. Those would be some impressive steroids to still be in his system eight months later.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
I said my question was hypothetical. . . .
Miriam-Webster Dictionary:
: involving or based on a suggested idea or theory : involving or based on a hypothesis
: not real : imagined as an example
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Steroids can be used legally in the US with a prescription, so the same basic question could apply.
He would probably start his career with a 50 game ban. However, reputation wise, it will hurt him much less than it would a US player.
Would he even be able to be suspended for something he did before he had signed a contract with MLB? I don't know the particulars of the league's policy, but it seems like it would be dicey to punish someone for something they did before they were subject to your rules.Niastri said:
This discourse is odd, of course, since "waiting for the results" in no way implies that they would be positive, but I'm surprised that you guys are focusing more on the possibility of punishment rather than what the use of steroids might mean about his performance and whether or not it could be expected to continue at the same level.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
I'm pretty sure some steroids, like deca, can be detected in your system for over a year.
InsideTheParker said:
The deal is pending a clean test. If he tests positive, he's not a Red Sox and we don't have to worry about his performance.
InsideTheParker said:
I agree. Even though there are clear short term gains to using PEDs, I'm pretty sure steroid use isn't as simple as "when you're on it you have an edge/when you're off it you're like someone who has never used steroids."
I don't have the link, I believe a study showed that certain kinds of steroid/PED use affected the physical structure of the muscles in a way that created a long-term "benefit." Or perhaps it was simply that the "development" of the body through steroids didn't fully disappear once off steroids. Moncada has the body he has at age 19. Assuming he did use something to gain it, who knows how that'd affect him going forward? (Pro or con).
Rovin Romine said:
My understanding is that the body gets "used" to the gains made on steroids, so even when that gains are lost off-cycle, it's easier for the former user to regain the strength and size initially gained through PED use because the body has already been there once.
That is the old "muscle memory" theory. As of two years ago (the last time I was reading about this) there had yet to be any evidence that was true. There is a belief among juicers that you can increase your potential by breaking the sheaths around the muscles allowing more room for muscle growth, but again this has not been proven. This is one of the things that flies in the face of feeling and conventional knowledge. Since I have worked out for many years I feel I can "get back in shape" faster than people who never trained. But study after study shows muscles respond the same way to training no matter what their past. Muscles are just meat.Marciano490 said:
Now you do not lose the gains as quickly as you gain them, but you do lose the benefits of the drugs after you stop taking them. It is not like weakness is a disease that steroids cure.
While the positive gains from juicing are dubious or apocryphal, there is evidence that extended use may make it harder to get back to where you were without them. While muscles are very simple, the testes and adrenal glands may get messed up by being shut off for long periods of time while the drugs do their jobs. That is one reason Arod, Manny, etc probably kept going back to the well. While the advantages to regaining past power seem psychological, there is at least a suggestion that lost potential in habitual users is physiologically possible.
the body tends to have an incredible capacity to reset itself. There are many myths about long term drug effects, "smoke crack once and you are addicted" is an example of those myths. "Juice it and you will always have an edge" seems another.
Now obviously this is all fantasy when talking about this particular player. But, if my favourite team invested a huge amount of money in prospect, and it turned out he was on steroids I would be concerned he would be unable to maintain those physical abilities sans juice. I would not even consider the possibility that it was in some way a positive that he had unlocked the super soldier serum and was the baseball Steve Rogers.
Jon Morosi @jonmorosi 10s10 seconds ago
Agent David Hastings says Yoan Moncada to be formally introduced by #RedSox "late this week or early next." @FOXSports
Agent David Hastings says Yoan Moncada to be formally introduced by #RedSox "late this week or early next." @FOXSports
Jeff Passan @JeffPassan 2m2 minutes ago
There's optimism that Yoan Moncada's deal with the Red Sox could finally be official by midweek, with press conference soon thereafter.
There's optimism that Yoan Moncada's deal with the Red Sox could finally be official by midweek, with press conference soon thereafter.
Ben Badler @BenBadler 7s7 seconds ago
Sounds like the Red Sox are finalizing things now for Yoan Moncada. Would expect it becomes official very soon.
Sounds like the Red Sox are finalizing things now for Yoan Moncada. Would expect it becomes official very soon.
The dollars were far enough under many people's expectation that there may be some "if it sounds too good to be true" superstition at play. Until that contract is signed there's always the chance of a problem. I'm not worried, but I'll still probably feel a little bit of relief when things are finalized.Gash Prex said:
Soon? Its like baby steps every day. Not sure why there is any concern over the deal at all.
Gordon Edes @GordonEdes 1m1 minute ago
Moncada announcement could be coming today. Press conference may come Friday in the Fort
Moncada announcement could be coming today. Press conference may come Friday in the Fort
Scott Lauber @ScottLauber
Moncada's right-handed swing #RedSox pic.twitter.com/YnQMEyD2Q1
Scott Lauber @ScottLauber
Moncada getting ready to hit in cage. Left-handed, at the moment #RedSox pic.twitter.com/JVEFNQPQ8x
Moncada's right-handed swing #RedSox pic.twitter.com/YnQMEyD2Q1
Scott Lauber @ScottLauber
Moncada getting ready to hit in cage. Left-handed, at the moment #RedSox pic.twitter.com/JVEFNQPQ8x
