| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 07-15-2010 |
The Seattle Mariners have reportedly made it official with Dominican outfielder Philips Castillo on a deal worth $2.2 million, and inked two other prospects as well, according to Ben Badler.
The club also signed Yordyn Calderon, a third baseman from Venezuela and Columbian right-hander Jose Torres, as expected.
We talked about what Castillo brings to the table right here.
Badler's report says Torres received $851,000 and Calderon signed for $477,500.
m\'s-sign-three-international-fas
Comments
The following 44 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: dawgncarolina on 07-15-2010 15:13:57 Looks like these three ranked #6, #12 and #18 on BA's ranking of projected bonuses for international players (not a talent ranking). Not sure how accurate this list is - hard to imagine there are 5 internationals who are getting more than the $2.2 Castillo inked for. We've been tied to Castillo and Torres for awhile, can't remember if we'd been tied to Calderon before. |
| 2. By: Jason A. Churchill on 07-15-2010 15:18:17 Calderon was mentioned by Badler a few weeks ago. He was expected to sign like Torres and Castillo. The club is apparently still in on DePaula, but who knows what happens there. He's 19, not 18, and wasn't the next Felix Hernandez anyway. |
| 3. By: dawgncarolina on 07-15-2010 15:27:55 I knew there was one other guy Badler had mentioned was likely to be an M, couldn't remember if it was Calderon or not. I'll be happy if we get DePaula, but he seems like a prototypical version of the winners curse - I won't be doing backflips over him. Not that I'd expect us to be the highest bidders anyway. Anything brewing on the Asian/Australian/European/South African front that you're aware of Jason? Is there a dollar amount that the M's usually allocate towards international signings, or do they take each year as a case by case? |
| 4. By: Jason A. Churchill on 07-15-2010 16:46:52 It's a case-by-case scenario, depending on the projected revenues, just like the big league payroll. |
| 5. By: southpaw360 on 07-15-2010 16:54:07 I'm pretty ecstatic about these signings. The M's have always scouted well in Latin America/overseas. With Jack Z as the GM and our last couple of domestic drafts (as well as international signing periods) the future is bright for the M's farm system. I don't think our farm system has looked this good since Nageotte, Blackley and Anderson were the next big things. I'm praying the next signings we make are for Littlewood, Stanek and Paxton. The M's on field product might be lacking this year and next but we are on the right track. |
| 6. By: Jason A. Churchill on 07-15-2010 18:25:11 I'm not even the least bit excited. The track record of Latin signings sucks. Much rather have put the money into the draft. When was the last time the M's, despite how good Bob Engle is, produced even a pseudo everyday big-league kid from their Lat Am crop? Jose Lopez and Felix Hernandez five years ago? They have spent millions in between with no results. |
| 7. By: southpaw360 on 07-15-2010 18:38:09 You could use the same argument for the draft. Our drafts have sucked too. When was our last good draft? 2006? They spent millions on Jeff Clement with nothing to show. Our number 2,3,6 and 8 prospects are international signings. So, basically what I'm saying is that was then and this is now. Jack Z is behind the wheel and I trust what he is doing. |
| 8. By: rosterbatorextraordinaire on 07-15-2010 19:02:19 Just a side note about the Latin signings... J.C. Ramirez was part of the package that brought us 2.5 months of Lee, now 6.5 years or more of Smoak, and a handful of other prospects. Asdrubal Cabrera, Shin-Soo Choo, Luis Valbuena, all with Cleveland, doesn't make them any less valueable. It wasn't poorly allocated funds, it was the organization beling poorly run. You can sign all the latin studs in the world, but if your team gives them away for Eduardo Perez and Ben Broussard, it doesn't really matter. Instead of dead-panning the international signings, we should dead-pan the trading of said talents. Also, what percentage of major league players are international signings? I'd imagine around 40-50%, so it would seem irresponsible to dismiss them. I'm more excited about Philips Castillo than I am about Baron. So is Castillo really not worth $1.2MM more than Baron?! Torres for $851,000 or $1.75MM for Josh Fields? I'll take international signings 8 out of 7 days of the week. |
| 9. By: rosterbatorextraordinaire on 07-15-2010 19:02:19 Just a side note about the Latin signings... J.C. Ramirez was part of the package that brought us 2.5 months of Lee, now 6.5 years or more of Smoak, and a handful of other prospects. Asdrubal Cabrera, Shin-Soo Choo, Luis Valbuena, all with Cleveland, doesn't make them any less valueable. It wasn't poorly allocated funds, it was the organization beling poorly run. You can sign all the latin studs in the world, but if your team gives them away for Eduardo Perez and Ben Broussard, it doesn't really matter. Instead of dead-panning the international signings, we should dead-pan the trading of said talents. Also, what percentage of major league players are international signings? I'd imagine around 40-50%, so it would seem irresponsible to dismiss them. I'm more excited about Philips Castillo than I am about Baron. So is Castillo really not worth $1.2MM more than Baron?! Torres for $851,000 or $1.75MM for Josh Fields? I'll take international signings 8 out of 7 days of the week. |
| 10. By: rotoenquire on 07-15-2010 19:50:04 I agree, you cannot dismiss these guys or go BLAH! ALLOT of talent comes form these signings. And the M's have done well with selecting them. Granted there keeping these talented players is way off. We could talk all day about bad trades and that would just be on the Starting Pitchers we have not kept. |
| 11. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 07-15-2010 20:39:33 All due respect, but Pineda and Triunfel. I don't know where you rank them Jason, but I see them as top five prospects in the M's system. |
| 12. By: Juan Valdez on 07-16-2010 00:44:22 I agree with Jason. Latin America seems like such a crapshoot. You have all the issues with figuring out players' true ages and then there are all the steroids and the shady buscones. Plus there are the language and cultural barriers that make developing players difficult. You compare that with the draft where every year it seems like you see talented players fall in the draft for signability reasons - it seems like you would get better return for your dollar there. |
| 13. By: Jason A. Churchill on 07-16-2010 01:09:09 maurice, They aren't jack squat yet. Prospects are suspects, and while they have a certain value, the point I made was about big leaguers and neither Triunfel nor Pineda are big leaguers. In 2011, both could become everyday big leaguers -- Pineda more so than Triunfel -- but that would still mean there was a 5-6 year gap, further proving my point. roto, Nobosy said dismiss, I just KNOW that more money is wasted on Lat Am signings than in any other form of player acquisition outside big-league free agency. The Draft is far more fruitful and that's just a fact. And let's not pretend like I said Lat Am and IFAs should be ignored, because I did not. |
| 14. By: dawgncarolina on 07-16-2010 01:12:19 Better return for your dollar in the draft, almost no doubt. But Chuck and Howie have made it pretty clear over the years that they have desire to regularly cross Selig (even when it could clearly benefit our organization). If the bosses won't let Z go consistently overslot in the draft, there's not too much else to do but to throw dollars around internationally. IFAs may not be the bargain that North American draftees are, but there is still a lot of talent to be found in the international ranks. I'd rather we do this than nothing, since I don't think becoming draft bullies is an option at least not until Chuck and Howie are out of the picture. |
| 15. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 07-16-2010 02:51:10 So Jason, does this mean you would support Selig's worldwide draft ideas. I wouldn't mind it, but I think a worldwide draft would need a minimum age like the NBA. Also kids should probably have to file papers to enter and once you are drafted that is it, your rights belong to that team. Also with that probably comes hard slotting. All in all I don't think it would be so terrible. |
| 16. By: lightbat on 07-16-2010 05:28:30 JAC first of all thanks for all you do. You have to have one of the best jobs ever. Second, I wish the Mariners spent more money on the draft. Who have they come up with outside if the draft other than jose and felix. Isn't jack smart enough to figure this one out? I love jack as much as the next guy but come on! Third, is there any chance of Halman being ready sor a call up in September??? If so do you think he sticks or will have to spend next year in Tacoma too. I would love to see him smash a few balls out of Safeco. Thanks JAC. If you ever get bored with your job we can always trade. Love the site and the coverage. |
| 17. By: Hackinator on 07-16-2010 08:05:51 What happened to Nick Franklin last night ...HBP and replaced ? |
| 18. By: The Great Pumpkin on 07-16-2010 08:21:58 Lightbat - Pineda, Triunfel, JC Ramirez, Choo, Cabrera are a few names that have come from International Signing. Plus the guy you just mentioned, Halman, They have come up with some valuable prospects, that should make an impact in the next few years. |
| 19. By: randallball on 07-16-2010 11:06:51 Not a good first game in Tacoma for Paredes. Yuck. |
| 20. By: Edman on 07-16-2010 11:47:26 dawg, I don't think that's at all true, or fair to say, first, that it's somehow Chuck and Howie, that haven't paid over-slot. They work for someone else who gives them a budget. Also, wasn't Baron signed over-slot? Tui? Jensen? If too many teams start a process of paying over-slot, it affects all of baseball. How many other teams do you see consistantly paying over-slot? Not many at all. Because it's not in their best interest. By your statement, "almost no doubt", it suggests you don't really know. I surely don't. But, some of the best players in the game were IFAs. The Mariners were as guilty as any team for handing out large contracts to International players. As to it's value, I suggest you look at the number of latin players in the game. The answer isn't paying over-slot. And, considering the number of kids taken in the draft, as compared to IFAs, I wouldn't at all assume that somehow the domestic draft is that much stronger. They have more numbers in the minors, that's true. But having not done a study, I'm not sure what the ratio of success actually is, for IFA versus those that were drafted. It would be an interesting study. Even better, would be a study of the cost per average of IFAs versus drafted players. We hear about the large signing bonuses given out to the better prospects. But, I'm sure there are many getting much less, similar to a low draft pick. |
| 21. By: wbathurs on 07-16-2010 11:50:45 Jason is not dismissing the International market. I think I understand his frustration with these signings. We have players in the draft that need to be signed. If the M's go cheap and don't sign their picks due to the fact that they won't go overslot or are being cheap then the International signings don't make sense. You just spent 3 million on prospects that have less of an impact than the draft picks that you selected in the draft. Signing Paxton, Littlewood, etc... should have monitory priority over the Latin signings. Once again Jason wasn't dissing the Latin market (and I agree with him), he was just staying that signing our draft picks is a must. If the M's made a splurge here and are cheap in the draft then they deserve criticism. |
| 22. By: dawgncarolina on 07-16-2010 11:55:13 "dawg, I don't think that's at all true, or fair to say, first, that it's somehow Chuck and Howie, that haven't paid over-slot." I, for one, am shocked, SHOCKED, to see Edman stepping in to defend Howie and Chuck. Will wonders never cease. |
| 23. By: John_S on 07-16-2010 12:06:10 Not trying to put words in Jasons mouth, but the risk on IFA's are extremely greater than kids in the draft. You're talking 16 yo kids who if a playing ball are playing against below HS competition and are receiving 1st round money for it. Whereas in the draft you have kids who are older and have a little more development physically and have been subject to better competition. |
| 24. By: Juan Valdez on 07-16-2010 13:04:43 The fact that you are dealing with 16 and 17 year olds is a great point. Because they haven't (in most cases) reached physical maturity - that alone likely delays your ability to evaluate what you have by two years or more. On a side note, I would assume that some organizations must be better at developing these types of players. I wonder which organizations those are and what it is they do that could be emulated by other teams. |
| 25. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 07-16-2010 13:41:36 I'm wondering if one of the young D-Jaxx pitchers has been booted from the rotation? Bray, Grube and Cortes tonight have started. That leaves Robles, Hensley and Beavan for two spots unless the team is going with a six man rotation. |
| 26. By: Edman on 07-16-2010 13:46:54 I am not at all, defending Howie or Chuck. But, unlike you, I see a bigger picture than laying blame on two guys who are figure-heads for a larger picture. Their job is to implement a strategy given to them by their bosses. If you're too narrow minded to accept that you're laying blame on two of several people who run the Mariner organization, that's not my fault. It's so easy to pick a scapegoat to lay blame on. And I suppose, ultimately that's one of their roles. But, it's like blaming the Captain of a infintry, because he followed the General's orders. Address the other part of my post, dawg, and quit trying to deflect from trying to answer it. |
| 27. By: DobberSr on 07-16-2010 13:56:24 Looks like Robles is the guy who has been dropped from the West Tenn rotation. He missed his regular start last night |
| 28. By: Jason A. Churchill on 07-16-2010 14:08:15 Re: JC Ramirez That doesn't mean much that he was part of what is largely considered a poor package to land Lee. Credit to Jack and co. for that, not the scouting and player development depts that scouted and developed Ramirez. Cabrera might be a nice player someday, but let's not pretend he's done anything but play defense and get hurt. Valbuena isn't a big-league regular, clearly. Choo indeed is a legit big league player and belongs in the category of a successful IFA signing. And again, I never said dismiss them, but pouring money into them as much as clubs do is irresponsible and flat out doesn't work. Pick a top guy or two to target, and add a couple of less pricey guys with upside and go with it. These guys don't pan out nearly as much as draftees do, and there is no getting around that fact. DobberSr, It appears that Robles was just pushed back. He's at 87 frames already and his career high is 124. If they let him go in turn every time from here on out, he could get a bit too far above that number. He could make as many as 11 or so starts the rest of the way and by pushing him back here and they can make that nine, which, at 6 ip per start, gets him to 54 innings and a season total in the low 140s instead of as much as 160. |
| 29. By: dawgncarolina on 07-16-2010 14:29:23 "Address the other part of my post, dawg, and quit trying to deflect from trying to answer it." Lol. Yes sir, captain sir. "They work for someone else who gives them a budget." I agree they don't set the budget. They very clearly have determined they want Selig to like them, which is why they've determined not to ruffle the feathers by going overslot. They've elected to use their budget differently, which is certainly their right, but let's not pretend they don't have the power to apply it to the draft if they wanted. "Also, wasn't Baron signed over-slot? Tui? Jensen?" Jensen is the extremely rare late round over slot guy we've had. Baron got an insignificant amount over slot. Tui got first round money when he was the first Mariners pick. The mere fact you have to go all the way back to Tui to find examples proves my point. The Mariners, except in very rare occasions, have chosen to neglect the better talent to adhere to Selig's slotting policies. "If too many teams start a process of paying over-slot, it affects all of baseball." Howie and Chuck don't work for baseball. They work for the Seattle Mariners. "How many other teams do you see consistantly paying over-slot? Not many at all. Because it's not in their best interest." And the ones who do beat everyone else on the field and more than make up for the extra expense with added revenue. "By your statement, "almost no doubt", it suggests you don't really know. I surely don't. But, some of the best players in the game were IFAs. The Mariners were as guilty as any team for handing out large contracts to International players." You're right, I have not done the research to determine the win value of an IFA versus the win value of a draftee. I was, however, agreeing with the stance of the author of this site, someone who DOES know. Moreover, it's common sense - the price of draftees is artificially suppressed by the process; they can't start a bidding war. IFAs can. Common sense should tell you that IFAs cost more than draftees. That doesn't necessarily make them bad investments, but it does back up Jason's claim that draftees are better investments. "As to it's value, I suggest you look at the number of latin players in the game." Yes, there are tons of great latin players. I am in no way arguing that we shouldn't sign them. Nice strawman. "The answer isn't paying over-slot." The answer to what? Paying overslot doesn't make you an instant contender. It is a great way to infuse talent into your organization quickly and at less cost than other alternatives. "And, considering the number of kids taken in the draft, as compared to IFAs, I wouldn't at all assume that somehow the domestic draft is that much stronger. They have more numbers in the minors, that's true. But having not done a study, I'm not sure what the ratio of success actually is, for IFA versus those that were drafted. It would be an interesting study." I agree 100%. I'm not the one making the claim that the draft is stronger. I do know that the draft gets you kids who are much closer to the big leagues and require much less future investment than the IFA market does. Coupled with the artificial suppression of salaries which isn't a factor for IFAs, the draft clearly gives you talent less expensively. "Even better, would be a study of the cost per average of IFAs versus drafted players. We hear about the large signing bonuses given out to the better prospects. But, I'm sure there are many getting much less, similar to a low draft pick." Agreed as well. I am in no way arguing against IFAs. But thanks for missing the point. |
| 30. By: Blowgun7 on 07-16-2010 14:55:00 Jason, where is Julio Morban? He hasn't played in quite sometime after leaving a game about a month ago in Pulaski. |
| 31. By: Jason A. Churchill on 07-16-2010 15:14:14 Morban is hurt... again. Which is why he slid so far on the top 30 at mid-season. It appears chronic. On the IFA v. Draft issue, doing a study is useless. Because for it to be SEEMINGLY useful, you'd have to go back six or eight years, since some draftees are 17-18 years old and some signees are as young as 16. But going back that far infuses steroids and a different era altogether into the study, which doesn't tell us anything about 2009-2010. It's a different animal now down there, as it is in the draft and the way MLB clubs are valuing their assets and spending money. The Mariners could have no spent a dime on IFAs this summer (already at $3.5 million) and instead drafted A.J. Cole, for example, and gave him Top 5 money. While there is strength is numbers -- 3 chances at an IFA to succeed versus one chance that Cole succeeds -- the talent level and upside are significantly in the favor of Cole, as is the chance one versus one -- or even one versus two -- that Cole is a big leaguers versus the IFA or IFAs. I'd bet three versus one, but not two, and I'd take Cole over the trio of Castillo, Calderon and Torres. |
| 32. By: southpaw360 on 07-16-2010 15:33:28 This whole argument would be nothing if the Mariners would put up the money to sign the draft picks that are not signed right now. We are an upper level market and should be able to spend more money than the average team. I hope we are just waiting to sign Littlewood, Stanek, Paxton, Shipers and Linehan until the deadline because of the commissioners office slot recommendations and they are all going to need an above slot bonus. I hope the signings aren't dragging on because they are not signing. I guess we will find out in a months time. |
| 33. By: dawgncarolina on 07-16-2010 15:49:22 "This whole argument would be nothing if the Mariners would put up the money to sign the draft picks that are not signed right now" No it wouldn't. We're debating the merits of being more aggressive in the draft. Obviously, if the M's fail to sign anymore than one of those guys, it tilts the argument even more in the favor of Jason's argument. But the argument is that we should have been even more aggressive in the draft than we were (and this was clearly the most aggressive draft we've had in, well, ever). |
| 34. By: Jerry on 07-16-2010 16:51:06 I don't think we can really fault the M's for their drafting or spending in the international FA market. For me, I think they are doing an awesome job in both areas. On the one hand, I think that we as outsiders really underestimate the pressure teams are under to adhere to slot guidelines. I know that MLB can't really stop teams from overpaying, but I have to think that being on good terms with Selig and friends is a lot more important than we may think. If it wasn't, why would most teams stick to slot? I don't think its just because they are cheap. The M's seem to be doing just fine while not spending a ton of cash. I would love to see them draft and sign some guys who fall, but their track record is good. This was a pretty aggressive draft for them. Since they have a great record of signing their top picks, I have to think that Paxton, Littlewood, and Stanek will get signed. If Shipers signs too, thats just gravy. I would have rather seen a higher ceiling guy thank Walker with the first pick, but those other guys more than make up for it. On the international front, they have been as good at bringing in talent as any team in baseball. They've been consistently good. Sure, there's risk. But the costs aren't all that high and there isn't much downside to overspending in the int'l market like there is with the draft. I don't think it should be a choice between the draft and the int'l market. Why not just do both? The M's seem to be doing that right now. Hypothetically, if they do fail to sign Littlewood or Paxton, and admit that it was because they chose to spend their money on Castillo, that would be a questionable decision. But I don't see why we should assume they won't sign those guys. They have been able to get all their top guys inked the last few years. Why should that change? I gotta think they had every intention of signing all of their top 10 guys, or they wouldn't have wasted picks on them. In general, the M's seem like they are better at identifying talent that most other clubs. Thats awesome. It makes it much easier to follow this team. This isn't something that we need to be concerned about. |
| 35. By: Edman on 07-16-2010 17:24:09 When you have someone as good as Engle in charge or International scouting, why wouldn't you be more inclined to use it? If he said "so-and-so is a good sign at X amount of money".....I'd believe him. And, what if they do sign Jordan Shipers? We don't know that they won't. They either drafted him to try to sign him, or keep someone else from drafting him. I would assume they knew it would take over-slot money. Let's give Jack a few drafts before we try to figure out his overall strategy. |
| 36. By: slamcactus on 07-16-2010 22:41:44 The basic idea is, there's absolutely no reason to get excited about a particular player until he shows you some performance. Pineda wasn't a huge dollar guy. Jharmidy De Jesus was. Predicting which athletic 16 year old who can kind of hit a baseball will turn into a man capable of turning around on mid-90s heat is damn near impossible. Price isn't a proxy for quality, just for upside. And when you're assessing that upside, you're talking about probabilities in the single digits. Among the top dollar guys (Cabrera and Valbuena weren't among them), we hit with Felix and Choo, and failed miserably with Huang, Salinas, Marquez, Lampe, and very likely De Jesus and Morban (among others). And that's just in the $500k+ crowd. Expand it to 6 figures generally and the failure list is a lot longer. One of these days we'll hit the jackpot again. Until then, we keep doing what we're doing: Throw money at the players our scouts think are worth it and hope for the best. There's too much talent out there to get out of the game, but we're going to burn a lot of Benjamins in the process. Oh, and we should also draft the way Boston does. Fuck Selig. |
| 37. By: rocketdawg31 on 07-17-2010 05:54:07 I think that IFAs are a bit of a necessary step, due to the fact that some diamonds ARE unearthed there...but shouldn't ever be pursued to the detriment of signing players you've drafted. For instance, if I were to find out we lost a chance to sign Shipers, Stanek and/or Littlewood directly because we gave Castillo 2.2 million- that'd make me mad. Regardless of how Castillo develops, even if his career eclipses a Jose Guillen, ultimately- your smarter bets are in the kids you've drafted and must go over-slot on to get. An IFA to me is like doubling down on a hard twelve in blackjack, when the dealer has a high card showing. Yeah, people DO get 8s and 9s when they do it..sometimes. People DO win that bet..sometimes. Rarely, though. And the odds against make that a lousy bet to undertake- even if it DOES sometimes gets rewarded. The converse in signing a high draft-pick kid, or a draftee with more talent than where he was drafted (like Shipers this year, or Scott Griggs last year)- to me that's the equivalent of doubling down on eleven when the dealer shows a three or four. In blackjack, with only 13 cards possible to get? FOUR of them (K,Q,J,10) make your "eleven" hand impossible to break, and 2 others make it difficult to beat you (9,8). Approximately, 28-30% of the deck is blatantly in your favor in this one instance and 43% of the deck overall strengthens you. On a blackjack table, you won't get odds favoring you any better. And even it fails in spectacular flames (which it can)...it's still the smarter bet. And you'll reap the benefits of accumulated smarter bets faster than what you ever will accumulated not-as-wise ones. Bottom line, it's all gambling. And if you gamble regularly, as all major-league clubs do on talent they see? You have to hedge your bets and make them smart as best you can- and then pray for the best. I'm just hoping there's still money to sign Stanek, Littlewood and certainly Paxton (who I think is the safest to say he will sign) after this foray into the IFA market. I wonder how worried we should be that so much was sunk into Castillo. JAC, do you have any idea if the scouting budget's been compromised, or blown outright? |
| 38. By: rocketdawg31 on 07-17-2010 05:55:35 Argh! I promise I will never, ever try to use HTML tags at 4 in the morning, ever again. I'm sorry, guys. |
| 39. By: skyway park on 07-17-2010 09:34:02 I know this is a little off topic, but I was at the Tacoma Reno game last night and was quite surprised at how small Dustin Ackley is he looked like a high school kid. He wqalked his first at bat then didn't do anything else the rest of the game hopefully it was just an off night. |
| 40. By: Jerry on 07-17-2010 11:35:42 Slamcactus, I think you are dramatically overstating how much of a crap shoot the international market is, and, in comparison, overestimating how high the probability of drafted players are. In both methods of talent acquisition, there are going to be busts. But I think that international scouts are a lot better at their jobs that you suggest. You mention that the probability of the high bonus guys turning into useful players in the single digits. Where did you get that figure? I highly doubt that is the case, and if you are going to argue that international players are such a waste of money, the burden of proof is on you to back that up with figures. Its a pretty easily quantified issue. But I would bet it far better than single digits. Particularly for the elite guys. The issue of whether or not we should be getting excited about these guys is pretty subjective. Sure, many of these guys won't pan out. And, with the international guys, you have to wait longer before they start to play above SS leagues, so they aren't as fun to follow for the fan as a guy like Ackley, who went straight to the AFL after signing and played pretty well. But I personally like to see the M's signing these guys, and the amount of information available online has grown to the point were its possible to learn something about these guys and follow their careers. I admit that I check the box scores from the Arizona M's and Pulaski pretty often to see how guys like Yao Weng Chang, Ji-Man Choi, Alfredo Morales, Alexi Palma, Gillermo Pimentel. I'm looking forward for the debuts of guys like Andres Brito and Jose Valdivia this year. Hell, we just signed Pimentel last year, and Jason already has him ranked #8 in the top 30 prospects. Sure, most of those guys will fail. But go back and look at the M's past few draft picks. Clement, Aumont, and Fields aren't exactly sure-thing talents. Its all a crap shoot in baseball. The international market just requires a bit more projection, and with it more risk. The M's have a clear advantage over most clubs in the market, and I hope they continue to milk that advantage for all its worth. The money involved is, in the grand scheme of things, pretty minor. We're paying more for Jack Wilson than we will for the entire international crop this year. For me, being a minor league geek, I am stoked that the M's are out there inking the interesting guys. I am still keeping my fingers crossed that they can get one of both of DePaula and Estelion Peguero. But even if they don't make any additional high profile int'l signings, they've done pretty well already. |
| 41. By: Jerry on 07-17-2010 12:16:15 And this is a tangent, but the talk of Shin Soo Choo and Asdrubal Cabrera makes me cringe. But at the same time, I makes me hope that Jack can bilk some team out of an undervalued player and hit the jackpot this year at the trade deadline, just like the Indians did to us when they acquired those guys. The M's have got to be shopping around guys like Jose Lopez, David Aardsma, and Russ Branyan right now. None of those players is going to net them a top prospect or anything. This is when Jack and the M's scouts can really show their quality. I am keeping my fingers crossed that they can ID an undervalued players in some other organization and get a contributor. Someone like Cabrera would be ideal. He would be a perfect fit for the M's right now. A good 3Bman would be nice too. I'd love to see them shop around for stalled prospects. Someone like Alex Gordon, Ivan DeJesus, Brandon Wood, Andy LaRoche, Reid Brignac, Jed Lowrie, or Taylor Teagarden. Most of those guys would be hard to acquire, but it would be nice to see the M's make a deal like the Blue Jays just made with Atlanta, and get a guy like Yunel Escobar: someone who had fallen out of favor with their current organization, and who could benefit from a change of scenery. At the risk of pouring salt into an old wound, the M's need to get lucky like the Tigers did when they stole Carlos Guillen from us. That would be perfect. This club needs some good luck. |
| 42. By: slamcactus on 07-17-2010 12:58:22 I collected some data on the 2004-2006 signing seasons, but nothing current. I have moved on to non-statistical baseball pursuits. Suffice it to say, the hit rate is very, very small. Here's the reported 6-figure guys from 2006: http://globalbaseball.wordpress.com/2007/01/25/revisiting-international-bonuses/ How many of these guys are even still remotely prospects? Montero as the big score in the class, while Triunfel, Martinez, Beltre, and Tejeda are still kicking around, but none of them exactly blue-chippers. The success rate is very, very bad, Jerry. I don't have a precise number, but it's not 10%. Between the fact that the legit ones are 16, half of them are (still) older, many of them start getting steroids from Buscones at the age of 13, and the fact many of them have grown up without anything close to resembling proper nutrition, AND the culture shock of moving from a tiny island to the greater Phoenix area or somewhere in North-Central Florida (and beyond)...there are a ton of things stacked against any one player making it. Even if he's athletic enough to command a ton of money when he's 16. |
| 43. By: slamcactus on 07-17-2010 13:00:42 Oh, and Andres Brito is Miguel Brito. He's playing for the VSL Mariners. He's hitting .268/.317/.362. Not bad for a 17 y/o down there. |
| 44. By: slamcactus on 07-17-2010 13:03:16 And just to be clear, I 100% support being major players in the international market. All amateur signing is a very bad numbers game. I think the DR is getting better with the emergence of the Dominican Prospects league, since people can actually see these guys in games and not just during field drills. I would be floored if the team went out and grabbed Peguero. Not because I think he's a good bet to succeed, but because of the slight chance that we're talking about another Hanley Ramirez. There's a ton of talent out there, and the only way to get that talent is to play the game. The game, though, involves wasting an amount of money that most of us would consider staggering. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
 |
|
|
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |