| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 03-03-2009 |
Jack Zduriencik is acting on Safeco's strengths - and his own.
The Seattle Mariners have still yet to play a regular season game under new GM Jack Zduriencik, but we've already seen the plethora of changes he's made, starting with the scouting director position and those he trusts most to surround him with information.
Zduriencik's strength lies within his own scouting abilities and his ability to identify others who have strong capabilities in the same area. Translation: He's a good scout, and knows another good scout when he sees one.
This doesn't mean that Zduriencik did not think much of Bob Fontaine or Benny Looper, he just has his own guys he's going to rely on for the same duties. Tom McNamara was brought in to replace Fontaine as the new amateur scouting director and rather than coasting by with assistants and advisors such as Looper, John Boles and Dan Evans, the M's new baseball operations king brought in Carmen Fusco and Tony Blengino, who have a track record of bringing something valuable to the table.
While there hasn't been a ton of changes with the scouts in the organization - I've yet to learn of one of the area scouts or regional coordinators losing their jobs yet - the way the club spends money in scouting is probably going to change.
Zduriencik retained, or was required to retain, International Scouting Director Bob Engle, but from what I can dig up, Seattle is likely to back off on the bonuses somewhat, at least for the short term.
Not because they don't trust Engle, he's the best in the business and the league knows it - thank you, Pat Gillick - but the financial resources are probably going to be re-allocated a little bit, at least during the first couple of years under Captain Jack.
This also doesn't mean the M's are going to cease scouring the Latin countries for top talent, but it likely means they are going to favor the domestic draft pick and the Asian market more than they have in the past. If you think about it, and I have, and ask the right questions of the right people, and I have, this actually makes a ton of sense.
Why?
Because Latin free agents have higher failures rates then do players taken in the first 10 rounds of the draft.
It's long been thought that the Latin countries were a way for clubs to get good talent on the free market. While that's true, teams will generally spend more money on a Latin player of similar talent levels than his domestic counterpart.
For example, right-hander Doug Salinas was given more than $400,000 to sign with the M's in July of 2005. (There are conflicting reports that claim he signed for less, and there are reports that say he signed for more. I was told by an agent of another player that Salinas got $400-500k, and I'm sticking with that.)
Salinas was 16 at the time and owned a 90-mph fastball. There were no polished mechanics, no plus command or consistency with any breaking ball or changeup. The club signed him in hopes that they could coach him into being a good pitcher, which is the equivalent of giving a High School sophomore or junior that kind of money, even though he'd go un-drafted if he were draft eligible.
It's a waste of money, and in this day and age of economic responsibility, it's probably going to be pared back by many clubs, and the Mariners are probably one of them.
Salinas, now 20, was released over the winter and picked up by Tampa Bay after going 8-15 with a 4.91 ERA in 48 games, including 25 starts. He struck out 174 in 177 2/3 innings, but issued 75 walks and never pitched above short-season ball.
Whether Salinas ever becomes anything or not isn't the point. Here is what is:
Right-hander Shawn Kelley was the M's 13th round pick out of Austin Peay in 2007. His bonus? Let's just say it was nowhere near a half-million bucks. In fact, it was nowhere in the neighborhood of six figures. Kelley begins the spring with a chance to break camp in the big-league bullpen and if not, he's the odds-on-favorite to close for Triple-A Tacoma in 2009.
Kelley, too, possessed a 90-mph fastball at the time he signed, but he also was 23 years of age and the club knew a lot more about him and who he was going to be when most prospects turn into big-league talents.
Left-hander Travis Mortimore was a 21st round pick the same year, and if you ask me -- and I think you should -- he's already better than Salinas ever was. His bonus? Without looking it up, I'd guess he either didn't get one at all, or it was something south of a grand, plus some tuition promises if he wanted to finish school or continue his education.
Kelley and Mortimore were about Salinas' equal, at the very least, and were tens of thousands cheaper, even hundreds of thousands cheaper.
So while yes, you can get as much talent in Latin America as you're willing to pay for, you're also spending money that might be better left unspent, or put into other ventures.
The Mariners aren't going to stop scouring the market for the top talents, but I'd be willing to bet they stop spending on quantity and focus a lot more on quality, taking fewer risks in the Dominican, Venezuela, and other Latin countries, and putting some of the savings into the big-league roster and the First-Year Players Draft.
The draft is what Zduriencik knows. It's his greatest strength, and building up the farm system through the draft, first and foremost, is a great idea, and one we should all embrace.
Photo of Shawn Kelley from Spring Training 2009 by Lonnie Mathis, Prospect Insider Staff Photographer
potential-changes-in-scouting
Comments
The following 15 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: usabaseballfan on 03-04-2009 00:34:45 Great article! Same goes for the ESPN blog post about Who Goes #2. You think Captain Jack will be active in the Japanese Market? He doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would be willing to throw a three-year deal at Kenji Johjima or a 4-year, $48 million deal at a Fukudome. Do you see him getting more of the cheap, older, but quality guys like Okajima? Or how do you see him spending his energy (and more importantly, money) in the Japanese market? |
| 2. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-04-2009 00:37:43 I think Jack is one of the rare old-school but new ideas type guys. He wants to get the undervalued types, but he wants to identify them mostly through scouting. I think Zduriencik is going to end his tenure in Seattle having never signed a single free agent for big money, unless that player was re-signing with the M's. |
| 3. By: usabaseballfan on 03-04-2009 01:53:59 Very interesting. How will that translate after this season when Batista, Bedard, Adrian, Washburn, etc. are set to come off the books? I realize that probably at least one of those guys will be moved before the year is up, but for argument's sake, let's assume they all become free agents and walk at the end of the year. That's a lot of money off the books. Even if we sign Adrian, or even Bedard, to a long-term extension, there will be a lot of cap room at the end of this season. If you are right about Big Z not signing any big-money FA's, does that mean that the team's payroll is going to slowly (or not-so-slowly) dwindle as the year's pass? Do you think we are going to turn into a Marlins-type team that has a lot of young talent but rarely makes a splash in Free Agency? Do you think we can win like that? I know that we need to build from within, but don't you need to make a splash every once in a while and fill a need that the organization is not going to be able to fill? I know that's a lot of questions, but I guess I'm just curious how you think the team will be able to compete within a payroll that gets smaller each year. I know that teams like the Twins and A's have had success doing it that way, but it seems much harder to do. And last I checked, the successful seasons put forth by the A's and Twins this past decade (and even the Rays last season), hasn't translated into winning any rings. |
| 4. By: usabaseballfan on 03-04-2009 02:03:51 I was going to say that the success of the Red Sox should be a perfect example of how high payrolls translate into success, but I guess they really haven't made big splashes in Free Agency either. Pedroia, Papelbon, Lester, Youkilis, and Ellsbury camer from within, Papi was initially a very economical FA pickup, and Bay, Lowell and Beckett came via trade. They did, however, have to give up Hanley, which would be hard to envision Big Z doing. The only notable signings that I can think of would be Schilling, JD Drew, and Lugo. Would you compare Dr. Z's philosophy more to that of the Red Sox or that of the Marlins? His lone offseason so far makes it look like he's taking a page out of the Marlins's playbook--but I guess that isn't necessarily a bad thing. |
| 5. By: 01v-dubs on 03-04-2009 02:14:26 Jason, I know before you said that Tate was not in the same class as the Uptons, but how does he compare to Aaron Hicks? If Hicks is better I think that might exemplify how poor this draft is. Also, how much stock should be put into prospects performances at the WBC? Halman hit a HR today against the Pirates, and Aumount had a nice one inning outing against the Jays. |
| 6. By: dewey on 03-04-2009 05:36:13 Fusco and Blengino have a track record of bringing something valuable to the table? Where do these 2 have there track record? Blengino was a area guy and a secretary with a title for the crew and Fusco isnt thought of very well in the industry from what i hear.Engle is a guy i would leave alone along with his budget because his department has put alot more players as of late on that field then our poor drafts have!Also the other teams will suck up Engle if he becomes unhappy in seattle. |
| 7. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-04-2009 08:23:22 Fusco and Blengino didn't get hired off the street. They bring Zduriencik exactly what he wants. A blend. |
| 8. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-04-2009 11:18:57 dubs, I haven't seen Tate, but I'll ask around on that. usa, The Marlins don't have a philosophy that pertains to baseball. It's about money, and it ends there. Seattle is more likely to operate like the Braves, though I don't think there's going to be a payroll sink much beyond where it already has. Back to Blengino and Fusco... they are only as good as the manner in which their efforts are interpreted by Zduriencik. The M's are still missing a chief special assistant - Boles, Schaffer, etc, aren't going to cut it, but I hear they wanted a guy who wasn't ready to leave his current post with another club. |
| 9. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-04-2009 11:53:16 I keep getting questions about Cal outfielder Brett Jackson, in regards to the M's No. 27 and 33 picks in the June draft. Don't get excited, he's nothing to be overly happy about at this point. He should be available to the M's at both 27 and 33, unless he drastically improves his ability to hit LHP, and hits for more consistent power. His upside is not J.D. Drew at the plate and Darin Erstad's prime in the field, like some have suggested. Most scouts question his long-term ability to stay in center, and his power doesn't profile well in a corner. It's early in 2009, but he's got six doubles and that accounts for all of his extra-base power in 40 plate appearances. He has 5-5 k/bb ratio, which is a better start than the way he ended '08 - 24 walks, 36 Ks. If Jackson was right-handed, we wouldn't be talking about him. In 2008, he's a second round talent at best. In '09, he's probably a late first. I'd much rather see the M's take someone with more upside with those two picks. Catchers Max Stassi or Luke Bailey, perhaps Austin Maddox, or one of the prep arms such as Turner, Wheeler or Skaggs... if they fall to 27. |
| 10. By: Marlin Man on 03-04-2009 12:16:04 High School pitchers as a top pick, scare the hell out of me- how often in the past twenty years have any of them made the majors- and did anything, once they got there- count them on one hand. MM |
| 11. By: rjfrik on 03-04-2009 13:36:17 I agree with Jason. Since this draft is a very weak one there isn't going to be great position impact players at 27 and 33. It's not like past years where you can get a quality 1st round talent there. Instead it's more like 2nd round talents. So, IMO, you have to draft guys with the biggest upside. And most of those guys are in High School. I think that's where we should focus with those picks, the top High School guys on the board. |
| 12. By: JonPax on 03-04-2009 15:39:09 Hi Jason, Long time lurker, first time poster. I love your posts and analysis. I have learned a lot over the last couple of years from reading your posts and comments. I was curious about whether Zduriencik brought in a bunch of top scouts with him when he was hired? I really like the idea of beefing up our scouting efforts. I also had thought we had done well in scouting in latin America, but realize that many other teams are also beefing up their presence in that area also. It hasn't seemed as if we scouted much in the Pacific Rim after Colbert left. Last year we had Suda and Chang, but before that not much, and I don't think we signed anyone this year either. It is very interesting to think about it in the terms you suggest, that maybe we are undervaluing our draft picks (say after the 3rd round or so, and overvaluing our latin America signings. |
| 13. By: slamcactus on 03-04-2009 18:28:29 I was expecting a decrease in Latin American investments this year because of the four draft picks in the top 50. Are you sure this won't just be a seasonal adjustment based on the number of domestic draft picks the team has to work with? The other thing worth noting is that there are still a lot of players out there in Latin America who don't have much in the way of representation. A guy with a prominent buscon throwing 90mph is going to get a lot more money than someone from a backwater town traveling from camp to camp to try and get an offer, and that still happens quite a bit on the international market. Basically, the mid-level talents out there who have promoters might get overpaid a bit, but there are a ton of guys at the same talent level who are on their own, and those guys are still often cheaper than their American counterparts. Also, top talent in Latin America has never gone for the same rates as top draft picks, because of the uncertainty built into signing 16-year-olds. The non-Cuban Latin American record was broken twice this past year, but it still only sits at a little above $4 million, and 4 draft picks eclipsed that mark in the 2008 draft alone (and 3 in 2007). |
| 14. By: PositivePaul on 03-05-2009 00:08:49 One of the other challenges of international free agents is that not only do you have to deal with rawness in ability (especially in <18 year olds) and (as the Nats just found out) potential falsehood in age -- but you also could very likely have the challenge of lifting that player from his culture and language and have to take some significant time and resources to "parent" a lot of these players -- especially, again, the teenagers. Throw in the pressure of giving someone whose family is used to making $500 a year hundreds of thousands of dollars, and yeah, you can see why there are scandals in other countries. That's not true of everywhere, of course, but it's certainly not something to be ignored... |
| 15. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-05-2009 13:03:28 Not a season thing, no. It's complete change in philosophy, and a good, smart one right now. Re: paul Yes, there are so many additional variables that go with Latin players that add risk. |
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 |