Yoan Moncada signs with Red Sox($30 Million)

[MikeM]

 
You really think the 30-something pitcher is a better bet to be worth $155-170m over the next six-seven years than the toolsy 19 y/o Cuban prospect with the .400+ OBP in the SN is to be worth $62 over the next six? I don't think that's very sure at all, without even factoring in ownership's interest in finding ways of investing in the roster that aren't subject to the CBT.
 

 
I don't have a firm answer on that to be honest. If one puts a lot of stock in our scouting of the guy, which i do (especially after reading about the 7 scout thing),you could honestly make a fairly valid argument either way imo. 
 
Almost seems equally risky in the end, and subject to personal preference. Which was pretty much my intended point. 

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

What really makes it so different though? Even writing off half of Moncada's deal as funny money, we have already passed the point on this value frontier where the money being paid out to these guys can simply be summed up as some previously minor side note. For guy that's potentially years away from even proving ready and/or capable of contributing where it matters (the MLB level), and i stress the "where it matters" in that btw.....Moncada didn't come cheap. To my knowledge that other half still ends up on the books whether he busts or not.

Maybe this will help. Ask yourself - if the Sox decide they want to spend $150-$170M on a top of the line pitcher, how many different choices would they have? They would have plenty. Lester and Scherzer this year; a slew of choices next year and I'm sure many more choices in the coming years.

Now ask yourself - if the Sox wanted to get a 19-year-old top 10 prospect, how are the going to do it? Odds are, they aren't, and if they do, it means a slew of teams have whiffed on the draft.

As rules change, teams have to figure out how best to build their teams. Given the w the rules are set up these days, and the fact that the Sox won't be able to sin any IFAs for the next two years (unless a draft is instituted), I find it difficult to understand why you can't see the difference between signing a 30 year old pitcher versus a 19 year old prospect in a rules environment that puts a premium on young talent.

 

[MikeM]

As rules change, teams have to figure out how best to build their teams. Given the w the rules are set up these days, and the fact that the Sox won't be able to sin any IFAs for the next two years (unless a draft is instituted), I find it difficult to understand why you can't see the difference between signing a 30 year old pitcher versus a 19 year old prospect in a rules environment that puts a premium on young talent.

 
I'm not finding it difficult to see the surface difference. It's the question of what extent do you stretch that premium value being placed on young talent, and how much it now costs to do so, that clouds the issue for me. 
 
In the end and under your own presentation, a lot can be said for the fact that the Sox actually have a present and tangible need for choice A. Prospect hording on choice B is nice and all, but we wouldn't be in the market for a 19yo top 10 prospect simply for the act of having one...keeping in mind the actual value to be had in that for us isn't found in some ranking # to begin with. Especially when it's investment price tag has all but negated off the higher odds lottery ticket appeal and outside the organization value one would reasonable expect to exist otherwise.
 
Just leaves me questioning whether that value process being placed around age/potential isn't getting a little too far ahead itself atm, while losing sight of a piece of the bigger picture. Regardless how the checks are being written out, luxury taxable or not......that's a lot of money to be going out on a project player is all. It's a big bet gamble on Ben's behalf and should be viewed as such imo.  

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

MikeM, I think part of what you're not seeing here is viewing each decision through the lens of opportunity cost.
 
Opportunity cost of signing Lester:
- Rotation spot effectively committed for 7 years; if he stinks he's essentially un-tradeable, barring another Punto trade falling from the sky like manna from heaven.  Sweet, sweet manna.  mmm.
- $25M+/year committed from the ML payroll, constraining signings for that duration, and luxury tax implications
- Can't spend that $25M/year any smarter in getting better around the rest of the roster
 
Opportunity cost of Moncada's signing bonus:
- No roster spot committed until and unless he fights his way up through the minors and earns a spot on the 25-man
- No major-league payroll commitments, or attendant deterrents from signings or luxury tax.
- Timing: all money paid to Moncada and the league is in 2015.  No impact on future years.
- Optionality: the Red Sox decide when he's ready to join the big squad, and don't have to start his clock before then (a la Craig Hansen)
 
And again, total cash commitment: Lester $175M + any incremental luxury tax paid; Moncada: $63M, not much more than a third of that figure.
 
I really think you can be supportive both of Ben's decision to fold in the Lester game, and go all-in on Moncada, without cognitive dissonance.  The two decisions had vastly different risk profiles - unless you're convinced the odds of Moncada being a bust are much higher than the Red Sox have predicted.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I'm not finding it difficult to see the surface difference. It's the question of what extent do you stretch that premium value being placed on young talent, and how much it now costs to do so, that clouds the issue for me. 
 
In the end and under your own presentation, a lot can be said for the fact that the Sox actually have a present and tangible need for choice A. Prospect hording on choice B is nice and all, but we wouldn't be in the market for a 19yo top 10 prospect simply for the act of having one...keeping in mind the actual value to be had in that for us isn't found in some ranking # to begin with. Especially when it's investment price tag has all but negated off the higher odds lottery ticket appeal and outside the organization value one would reasonable expect to exist otherwise.
 
Just leaves me questioning whether that value process being placed around age/potential isn't getting a little too far ahead itself atm, while losing sight of a piece of the bigger picture. Regardless how the checks are being written out, luxury taxable or not......that's a lot of money to be going out on a project player is all. It's a big bet gamble on Ben's behalf and should be viewed as such imo.

Moncada isn't about this year, he's about five years from now. It's a question of team-building. In five years, what ability do you think the Sox will have to get a middle of the order, All-Star level 24-year-old? Absolutely none. 19 year olds have such a premium these days because 24 year olds don't come on the market.

(BTW, this is the same logic that resulted in $175M for Tanaka). Here's a MFY writer making the same point: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/02/24/schmeelk-yankees-made-big-mistake-by-not-signing-yoan-moncada/

Assuming the rules don't change, it's going to be interesting to see how talent is disbursed throughout the league. I'm not one who believes that teams have a repeatable ability to draft better than other teams, so I would think that talent level should be disbursed fairly evenly.

 

[Plympton91]

I think there are overstatement in the past two posts:

1. John Henry knows how to invest $63 million and spend it over multiple years. I don't think it's right to say that all the effect of Moncada is reflected in 2015's budget. They likely rejiggered spending levels in future years to pay it; indeed part of the adjustment to this year's entire international spree is is mandated inability to bid on big ticket players for the next two years.

2. The supposed inability to get a middle of the ordr 24-year-old 5 years from now. First, there's no uarantee that Moncado will be a middle of the order bat. Second, if you expand 24-year-old to "mid-twenties" then the Red Sox could trade for such a player or perhaps the Cuban or Japanese professional leagues will still be supplying free agents even in a worldwide draft regime.

Moncada is a great signing by a great and dedicated owner and as a player who in expectation should at least earn his keep. But, there's a much higher probability that Moncada will flame out than that any individual pitcher will need TJ surgery during a 6 year contract.

 

[chrisfont9]

 
You really think the 30-something pitcher is a better bet to be worth $155-170m over the next six-seven years than the toolsy 19 y/o Cuban prospect with the .400+ OBP in the SN is to be worth $62 over the next six? I don't think that's very sure at all, without even factoring in ownership's interest in finding ways of investing in the roster that aren't subject to the CBT.
 
Moncada has such a high chance of being at least an acceptable major leaguer that his age makes it possible to cash out, limiting the downside. I love Lester, but that's a really, really risky move by the Cubs. If things go wrong with Lester, it could easily look more like Cliff Lee's deal looks now. The downside for Moncada is probably more like his old double play partner Erisbel Arruebarrena's situation. I bet if the Dodgers wanted to cut their losses with him, they could find a taker. 
 
(I agree with your larger point that the ridicule of Cashman is foolish. He should stick to his valuation just as Ben did.)

I still don't get why we talk about the $62m like it counts for luxury tax purposes. Are we trying to discuss how accurately player contracts track value, for the sake of argument? Or are we trying to gauge the effect on the Sox' roster-building plans of having signed Moncada? The former is just academic discourse, and the latter is all I care about.
 
IMHO the $62 mil paid almost certainly isn't the number that tracks the impact to roster building, for the obvious reason that it doesn't count against the tax. If Henry isn't deterred at all from other spending by having paid out this bonus in 2015, then the only cost we care about is his standard salary from rookie to arb years. If Henry wants to deduct $15 mil from salary expenses as a result of having paid the bonus, then that plus his escalating salary is his cost to the team's roster-building. Only the FO actually knows how much this signing impacts team construction, but I'd bet it's a lot closer to zero than to $62 million worth.

 

[cahlton]

Apologies if I've somehow overlooked the answer to this question in this thread, but has Cherington announced whether or not Moncada is going to see any game action during spring training?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Apologies if I've somehow overlooked the answer to this question in this thread, but has Cherington announced whether or not Moncada is going to see any game action during spring training?

 
He's a minor leaguer so his game action has been coming in minor league games.  Considering they've already begun sending down 40-man roster guys and minor league contract players who had big league camp invites in order to create more playing time for the guys who are still competing for 25-man spots, I can't see them bothering to play Moncada in a big league game at this point.

 

[cahlton]

 
He's a minor leaguer so his game action has been coming in minor league games.  Considering they've already begun sending down 40-man roster guys and minor league contract players who had big league camp invites in order to create more playing time for the guys who are still competing for 25-man spots, I can't see them bothering to play Moncada in a big league game at this point.

Right, but there's been no word at all (at least not that I'm aware of) about how he's looked--at the plate, on the bases, in the field. We've seen some footage of him taking BP and that's been about it. I know Cherington asked reporters to let Moncada do his thing in peace, but he didn't ask for a media blackout. That's why I wondered if Moncada is actually seeing any game action.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Globe: Moncada starting to see game action

 

[cahlton]

Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!

 

[Sampo Gida]

I think there are overstatement in the past two posts:

1. John Henry knows how to invest $63 million and spend it over multiple years. I don't think it's right to say that all the effect of Moncada is reflected in 2015's budget. They likely rejiggered spending levels in future years to pay it; indeed part of the adjustment to this year's entire international spree is is mandated inability to bid on big ticket players for the next two years.

2. The supposed inability to get a middle of the ordr 24-year-old 5 years from now. First, there's no uarantee that Moncado will be a middle of the order bat. Second, if you expand 24-year-old to "mid-twenties" then the Red Sox could trade for such a player or perhaps the Cuban or Japanese professional leagues will still be supplying free agents even in a worldwide draft regime.

Moncada is a great signing by a great and dedicated owner and as a player who in expectation should at least earn his keep. But, there's a much higher probability that Moncada will flame out than that any individual pitcher will need TJ surgery during a 6 year contract.

 
Well, yeah, you can say that with any prospect, although the most highly rated prospects have a lower flame out rate (30-50% for those in BA top 20) vs 70-80% vs at  for the last 10 in the BA 100 lists.  Bust being defined as below average.
 
http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects
 

 
If there were 100% certainty Moncada would be a 4 WAR player he probably costs 100 million instead of 63 million.  Also, he likely is ready far earlier than 5 years if he is an elite talent as elite talent perform well at MLB level at age 20-22
 
1/6 MLB pitchers have undergone TJ surgery according to one report I read (sorry, cant find link), and perhaps the same amount have shoulder, lat issues or other elbow issues. 
 
Risk is part of the equation. The good teams know how to manage it.   I think the Red Sox did a good job on knowing how high to go on Moncada. If it does not work out, so be it.  Maybe they have insurance that mitigates some of the risk.  The payoff is pretty large though if Moncada turns out to be a 4+ WAR player, and they do well if he is even a 3 WAR player

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I think there are overstatement in the past two posts:

2. The supposed inability to get a middle of the ordr 24-year-old 5 years from now. First, there's no uarantee that Moncado will be a middle of the order bat. Second, if you expand 24-year-old to "mid-twenties" then the Red Sox could trade for such a player or perhaps the Cuban or Japanese professional leagues will still be supplying free agents even in a worldwide draft regime.
 

 
I obviously disagree with you that I'm overstating how the new rules - assuming an IFA draft - will affect how teams are going to obtain premium young talent.  Without looking up many of the details, the Red Sox's current farm system was built on leveraging their financial strength to draft and sign a slew of over-slot players.  For instance, Swihart, Owens, and Betts were all over-slot in the 2011 draft, and Matt Barnes was too (marginally) - BTW, what a draft that was - not even including the overslot players who didn't make it (Kukak immediately comes to mind).
 
Teams aren't going to be able to draft the equivalent of 9 or 10 1st and second round players anymore.  The draft salary cap is the great equalizer, and the amount of money sloshing through the system means that teams will be locking up their young premium talent until they hit their 30s.
 
It'll be interesting to watch.

 

[In my lifetime]

Just some quick very rough math from the article cited above which further separates out position player prospects from pitchers :
 
Moncada is currently listed by several as the #9 or 10 prospect
So using the above average of the top 20 and using the WAR midpoint in McKinney's article
 
.39 x 1.0 ave WAR (0-1.5) = .39
.21 x 2.0 ave WAR (1.5 - 2.5) = .42
.40 x 3.7 ave WAR (2.5 - 4.5+) = 1.48
 
Expected average WAR for top 20 prospect = 2.29
 
2.29 x 6 team controlled years = 13.74 total WAR
 
13.74 x 6.5 M/WAR = 89.3 million in expected value.
 
OK - plenty of estimations in that number and it is no way meant to represent a true figure. However, I am sure the RS modeled the scenarios to figure out the expected value much more accurately.  Also left out is salary inflation and WAR value inflation as well as the present day value of money..
 
So 63M cost + ~1.8M total for 3 pre-arb years + arb awards to a 2+ WAR player of a very approximate 2M + 4M + 6M = 77M
 
So on average with very rough estimates, if Moncada is truly a top 20 prospect he is projected to have a positive net worth of about 12M.  This probably underestimates the value, since the salary for luxury tax purposes is a small fraction of the expense.  Meaning if the entire 77M cost over 6 years was salary, it would contribute significantly to sending the RS over the cap. Whereas in reality a 2 WAR player in his 1st 6 team-controlled years helps a team stay under the cap.
 
So the gamble at least on the surface seems to be a good one, but certainly is not a slam dunk.  The gamble is much better for teams that tend to be near or over the luxury tax threshold than for teams that are safely below the threshold.
 
 
 

 

[Plympton91]

Off-topic: look at those bust rates on anyone outside the top 20!

Actually, is that chart right? The rows sum to way more than 100 percent.

I think superior is a subset of success. So 61 percent in the top 20 are a success, and of that 61 percent, 40 percent are superior. So your calculation should be:

39 percent bust, 24 percent superior, and 37 percent success.

 

[In my lifetime]

To clarify the chart
 
Bust is <1.49 WAR
Success includes everyone else
Superior >2.5
 
So Superior is a subset of success  (just excluding 1.5 - 2.49 WAR)
 
That is why it is >100%.
Not the ideal way to present a chart, but that is how McKinney set it up

 

[finnVT]

I'd presume superior is a subgroup of success.

 

[Plympton91]

So, according to the chart, about 2/3rds of prospects ranked 20-60 are busts, and almost 3/4ths of prospects ranked 60-100 are busts. For me, that says Ruben Amaro Jr. may not be as crazy as everyone around here makes it seem. With Cole Hamels, he has a major league pitcher. With Henry Owens, he has a 33 percent chance of a major league pitcher back, and a 7 percent chance of getting something approximating Cole Hamels back. A package of Swihart and Owens for Hamels is breakeven for Amaro, according to that chart.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Also, on Moncada's #9/#10 ranking... how often does a drafted player start that high up on the list? Bogaerts wasn't a top 100 prospect until after his age 18 (Greenville) season, and he didn't get to about Moncada's level until after his Trenton/Salem year.

I have the BP list in front of me - no one drafted in 2014 came anywhere near the top 10. At the same age, Bogaerts (after his Greenville year) was ranked much lower and Betts was not even on the radar as a serious prospect.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

So, according to the chart, about 2/3rds of prospects ranked 20-60 are busts, and almost 3/4ths of prospects ranked 60-100 are busts. For me, that says Ruben Amaro Jr. may not be as crazy as everyone around here makes it seem. With Cole Hamels, he has a major league pitcher. With Henry Owens, he has a 33 percent chance of a major league pitcher back, and a 7 percent chance of getting something approximating Cole Hamels back. A package of Swihart and Owens for Hamels is breakeven for Amaro, according to that chart.

 
That calculus only works if you ignore salaries, and if you ignore the differential expectation for a decline in value / durability for Hamels' age 31-35 seasons rather than a young prospect's first 6 seasons in the bigs.
 
Also, I think you're multiplying the "Superior" ratio by the "Success" ratio, whereas I think they're percentages of total outcomes - the former isn't a percentage that's a subset of the latter.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Here's a look at him from his first game. This ended up being an out but man... You can see him having easy power with that swing.

Yoan Moncada deep fly to CF.: https://youtu.be/TTKYa8FAKng

 

[DanoooME]

Also, on Moncada's #9/#10 ranking... how often does a drafted player start that high up on the list? Bogaerts wasn't a top 100 prospect until after his age 18 (Greenville) season, and he didn't get to about Moncada's level until after his Trenton/Salem year.

I have the BP list in front of me - no one drafted in 2014 came anywhere near the top 10. At the same age, Bogaerts (after his Greenville year) was ranked much lower and Betts was not even on the radar as a serious prospect.

 
Closest I can think of off the top of my head and a quick look was Bryce Harper drafted in 2010 and was #1 on BPs list for 2011.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Also, on Moncada's #9/#10 ranking... how often does a drafted player start that high up on the list? Bogaerts wasn't a top 100 prospect until after his age 18 (Greenville) season, and he didn't get to about Moncada's level until after his Trenton/Salem year.

I have the BP list in front of me - no one drafted in 2014 came anywhere near the top 10. At the same age, Bogaerts (after his Greenville year) was ranked much lower and Betts was not even on the radar as a serious prospect.

 
With Baseball America, at least, its not that uncommon for top prospects who show well in limited time the summer after being drafted.  Kris Bryant debuted at #8 in 2014 after being drafted in 2013, Byron Buxton debuted at #10 in 2013 after being drafted in 2012, Trevor Bauer debuted at #9 in 2012 after being drafted in 2011, etc.

 

[nighthob]

Here's a look at him from his first game. This ended up being an out but man... You can see him having easy power with that swing.

Yoan Moncada deep fly to CF.: https://youtu.be/TTKYa8FAKng

That is one sweet swing from the left hand side.

 

[Montana Fan]

That is one sweet swing from the left hand side.

Kinda reminds me of Mattingly's swing.

 

[soxhop411]

https://twitter.com/Jared_Carrabis/status/588491566387486720
 

 

[theapportioner]

To me, the most notable thing about that picture is that he wears glasses.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

To me, the most notable thing about that picture is that he wears glasses.

No tattoos...
 
Also, he has an innie.  Is there an analysis of innies vs. outies?

 

[cwright]

To me, the most notable thing about that picture is that he wears glasses.

 
Yeah, that's what struck me.  Does he wear them on the field, or just when looking in a mirror?

 

[SaveBooFerriss]

To me, the most notable thing about that picture is that he wears glasses.

 
He is going for the Hot Librarian look.  

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I would guess glasses are a fashion statement rather than a prescription thing.  Though maybe they're those off-the-rack magnifying reading glasses so he can better see his phone's screen.

 

[Doooweeeey!]

Bump the "What Kind of Tail?" thread...

 

[Tangled Up In Red]

Any update on Moncada? Where he's playing, what the reviews/results are?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

There are no stats recorded for him at Fangraphs or Baseball-Reference so that probably means he's in extended spring training for the time being. Here's an article from April 14th about his 2015 debut in an extended spring training game.
 
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/one-fan-shows-up-to-watch-yoan-moncada-s-minor-league-debut-231227089.html

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

 

[VBSoxFan]

There's a brief update on Moncada in this WEEI Minor League update. Not much new, still getting acclimated to full time American baseball in EST, working out exclusively at second base.
 
Quote from Director of Player Personnel Ben Crockett:
 

 
 
“We’re not putting any specific time frame on Moncada, but there’s a lot to be learned. He’s done a great job on the field learning some of the drill work and getting comfortable and blending in with the team. Having been away from the game and in the team environment for such a long time I think it’s valuable for him.”

 

[mt8thsw9th]

There's a brief update on Moncada in this WEEI Minor League update. Not much new, still getting acclimated to full time American baseball in EST
 

For what it's worth, it's EDT, but that's the same time in Cuba.

 

[VBSoxFan]

For what it's worth, it's EDT, but that's the same time in Cuba.

 
I understand how that could be misinterpreted but in this case EST = Extended Spring Training.

 

[soxhop411]

@jnorris427: Greenville manager Darren Fenster said it was a hamstring for Moncada. Longterm status unclear. #RedSox

 

[BoredViewer]

If you're going to pull a hamstring, 19 is a good age to do it.  I'm glad(hopeful) it wasn't a knee.