SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jan 2014-June 2015 International Signings
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 27, 2015 14:02:25 GMT -5
Badler answered this question on Twitter the other day. 10k is the number that does not count towards the pool. There used to be 5 or 6 exceptions for contracts under 50k as well, I'm pretty sure, but those are now gone.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 27, 2015 16:13:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by greenmonstah on Feb 27, 2015 19:54:11 GMT -5
Interesting to see if the Sox will make value moves for their limited budget per player now
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 28, 2015 9:02:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 28, 2015 10:02:28 GMT -5
Such an odd and unfortunate thing about human nature that we are so easily moved by disparity to take things from others instead of demanding the same for ourselves ... maybe American players should be agitating for an end to the US draft instead of the imposition of one on international players. They probably won't get it, but it'd be worth making a stink over.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 28, 2015 11:41:38 GMT -5
This is just an extension of the discussion I figured would be kicking into gear once Moncada was signed. It stood to reason that it would be for somewhat more than a figure taken from the high end of the pools MLB allots each team, and it sure was.
Just as you point out, the real discussion should revolve around the draft process. What the players need to ask is not "why did he get so much" but "why did I get so little of the available pie". Meanwhile, you can bet that the owners will scramble to put an over-arching draft system in place to blunt this discussion. You can also lay money down that it will act as a further constraint on the international market, that's a given.
The missing player in this? The MLBPA. As I mentioned previously, with the age-performance curve shifting to the left, the value of young talent continues to skyrocket, even as those constraints limit what those players can expect to make. The converse is that the value of older players - the ones who rely on the Players Association to carry the water for them - will drop. MLB has successfully created artificial constraints, and a serious market inefficiency, one that bites the established players.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 28, 2015 19:24:46 GMT -5
I think we all know what's going to happen. The new CBA will include an international draft for the 2017 season. The Red Sox will never again be able to sign a player of Moncada's talent level and probably not a player as talented as Acosta or Espinoza either. That's why the Red Sox need to go out and spend whatever it takes to sign Yadier Alvarez by July 2. There aren't that many 18 year olds that are as talented as he is and those that are are long gone in the draft before the Sox pick. If Alvarez manages to get a waiver to sign before July 2, the Sox need to make an aggressive offer.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 1, 2015 1:36:11 GMT -5
Jon Morosi ?@jonmorosi 10m10 minutes ago MLB starting push for international draft, but MLBPA chief Tony Clark has reservations. Story for @foxsports: www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/mlb-players-union-not-endorsing-worldwide-draft-tony-clark-030115 … This coming year, we might see some actual international player bidding competition as pretty much every team will consider overspending if there will be a draft. Those that don't will be in a perfect position to overspend the year after. Maybe a team like the Cubs might decide to hold out to be the biggest elephant in the room for the year after. The players will want something back. Maybe an end to the loss of a draft pick being tied to specific players, maybe they will add picks for losing players with nobody losing a pick for signing one.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 1, 2015 8:56:45 GMT -5
Penalties for spending above the cap will carry over to the international draft (e.g., loss of draft picks). Some teams will still overspend, but I doubt it's much more than the 3-4 teams per year that we've seen so far.
|
|
|
Post by sportnik on Mar 1, 2015 9:29:04 GMT -5
I hope they are contemplating a NHL style international draft with all players worldwide eligible at a certain age and not holding a US draft and an international draft separately.
If separate drafts are held, the last place team would get the best US player plus the best international player, assuming the draft order is the same. This seems so unfair that it can't possibly be under consideration. However, you can't rule anything out given how the commissioners office seems hellbent on slanting the playing field in the direction of small market clubs.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 1, 2015 13:46:29 GMT -5
Jon Morosi ?@jonmorosi 10m10 minutes ago MLB starting push for international draft, but MLBPA chief Tony Clark has reservations. Story for @foxsports: www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/mlb-players-union-not-endorsing-worldwide-draft-tony-clark-030115 … This coming year, we might see some actual international player bidding competition as pretty much every team will consider overspending if there will be a draft. Those that don't will be in a perfect position to overspend the year after. Maybe a team like the Cubs might decide to hold out to be the biggest elephant in the room for the year after. The players will want something back. Maybe an end to the loss of a draft pick being tied to specific players, maybe they will add picks for losing players with nobody losing a pick for signing one. When it comes down to it, players unions in every sport don't give a damn about drafted players. They'll do something to control spending, and that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Mar 1, 2015 14:33:42 GMT -5
I think we all know what's going to happen. The new CBA will include an international draft for the 2017 season. The Red Sox will never again be able to sign a player of Moncada's talent level and probably not a player as talented as Acosta or Espinoza either. That's why the Red Sox need to go out and spend whatever it takes to sign Yadier Alvarez by July 2. There aren't that many 18 year olds that are as talented as he is and those that are are long gone in the draft before the Sox pick. If Alvarez manages to get a waiver to sign before July 2, the Sox need to make an aggressive offer. Gotta think the Dodgers would be livid if he was granted a waiver. They passed on Moncada for next year's pool, a major part (I'm assuming) of which was Alvarez. Then to have Alvarez go this year as well, that'd be rough. I'm sure they already have handshake deals with other players, but still.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Mar 1, 2015 18:14:26 GMT -5
I think we all know what's going to happen. The new CBA will include an international draft for the 2017 season. The Red Sox will never again be able to sign a player of Moncada's talent level and probably not a player as talented as Acosta or Espinoza either. That's why the Red Sox need to go out and spend whatever it takes to sign Yadier Alvarez by July 2. There aren't that many 18 year olds that are as talented as he is and those that are are long gone in the draft before the Sox pick. If Alvarez manages to get a waiver to sign before July 2, the Sox need to make an aggressive offer. Gotta think the Dodgers would be livid if he was granted a waiver. They passed on Moncada for next year's pool, a major part (I'm assuming) of which was Alvarez. Then to have Alvarez go this year as well, that'd be rough. I'm sure they already have handshake deals with other players, but still. This depends. It is quite possible that if a waiver is granted it may not be resolved until the end of April or mid way through May or even closer to the July 2 date. Even if it was immediately LA once again can offer more money than all others with the caveat that he has to wait to sign until after July 2. For Moncada he wanted to sign and get into camp to increase his odds of reaching the Majors faster. We don't know that this is the case with Alvarez and it doesn't preclude the Dodgers from being involved. For Alvarezs agent having Boston, NYY, LAA and all others involved is best for getting max value for his client and if the Dodgers offer 5 mil more he may be inclined to sign after July 2. Now for the Dodgers having Alvarez wait definitely eliminates Boston, NYY, LAA and TB for certain which is ideal to keep down the effective cost. Waiting doesn't effect the presence of the Cubs or the Rangers as they can still offer a deal like the Dodgers where he has to sign after July 2.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 2, 2015 12:10:38 GMT -5
Ben Badler ?@benbadler 45m45 minutes ago By MLB rules, Cuban pitchers Vladimir Gutierrez and Yadier Alvares might have to wait another 16 months to sign: bit.ly/1wK9FsC Ben Badler ?@benbadler 45m45 minutes ago Alvares or Gutierrez could challenge those rules. How MLB handles them will shape the future of young Cuban signings: bit.ly/1wK9FsC
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 2, 2015 22:56:19 GMT -5
The missing player in this? The MLBPA. As I mentioned previously, with the age-performance curve shifting to the left, the value of young talent continues to skyrocket, even as those constraints limit what those players can expect to make. The converse is that the value of older players - the ones who rely on the Players Association to carry the water for them - will drop. MLB has successfully created artificial constraints, and a serious market inefficiency, one that bites the established players. This makes no sense. MLB Owners would not suddenly start spending 5 times as much on payroll if the constraints disappeared (e.g. if US laws suddenly disappeared and were replaced by European laws, and the whole draft collusion business was declared illegal). No, on the contrary, these artificial contraints are very good for the established players. Less money spent on young players means that there is more money available to spend on vets.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 4, 2015 7:37:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 5, 2015 9:31:37 GMT -5
Jon Morosi ?@jonmorosi #Mariners closing baseball academy in Venezuela due to political crisis there, according to @ignacioserrano. Story: ow.ly/JXVs7 . . . Jose de Jesus Ortiz ?@ortizkicks Venezuelan journalist @ignacioserrano reports that Astros scouts were denied entry into Venezuela because of lack of visas.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 5, 2015 17:56:56 GMT -5
The missing player in this? The MLBPA. As I mentioned previously, with the age-performance curve shifting to the left, the value of young talent continues to skyrocket, even as those constraints limit what those players can expect to make. The converse is that the value of older players - the ones who rely on the Players Association to carry the water for them - will drop. MLB has successfully created artificial constraints, and a serious market inefficiency, one that bites the established players. This makes no sense. MLB Owners would not suddenly start spending 5 times as much on payroll if the constraints disappeared (e.g. if US laws suddenly disappeared and were replaced by European laws, and the whole draft collusion business was declared illegal). No, on the contrary, these artificial contraints are very good for the established players. Less money spent on young players means that there is more money available to spend on vets. Not just on your say so, I hope. Look at the change in valuations in MLB from 1999 to 2012. Even the small market teams, such as the Rays, are worth almost a half-billion. All have at least doubled in value. Some, including franchises as diverse as the Sox and Twins, have seen over 600% increase in that valuation. We're not talking about the working poor, here. The only way it doesn't make sense is if you assume the teams have maxed out on what they can spend for talent. They haven't. The "soft cap" isn't soft at all. It hits teams in the one place where they really, really feel it - the young talent that's undervalued, where they make a huge part of their money. Besides, it's always better to report a 20% profit margin to investors, than 10%. Since we can all play amateur economist here, let me give you my take. A fairer valuation for young talent would eventually lead to money flowing into the pocket of older players. That's because the younger talent would eventually be priced at something closer to its real value, after the expected fluctuations in that market washed out. Teams could then make an honest comparison with older talent and decide against paying for six+ years - with risk - to a player whose price is now closer to what he actually gives you. They might then decide to do just what the Sox did three years ago and pay more money for a shorter number of years. That reduces the team's risk, while still providing good value for a player whose may be past his prime but out of whom you could also expect a decent number of wins. There's plenty of money in MLB to go around. The current rules and limits distort the marketplace. Time for a change.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 6, 2015 12:12:23 GMT -5
This is the first I've heard of this: Sporting News MLB ?@sn_Baseball 1h1 hour ago Florida man to be sentenced for smuggling Yasiel Puig out of Cuba dlvr.it/8s5yMv
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 6, 2015 23:02:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 6, 2015 23:41:28 GMT -5
Unlikely Sox interest: Ben Badler ?@benbadler 29s29 seconds ago MLB has declared Cuban infielder Hector Olivera a free agent bit.ly/1E1qx3c
|
|
|
Post by quintanariffic on Mar 7, 2015 13:27:35 GMT -5
This makes no sense. MLB Owners would not suddenly start spending 5 times as much on payroll if the constraints disappeared (e.g. if US laws suddenly disappeared and were replaced by European laws, and the whole draft collusion business was declared illegal). No, on the contrary, these artificial contraints are very good for the established players. Less money spent on young players means that there is more money available to spend on vets. Not just on your say so, I hope. Look at the change in valuations in MLB from 1999 to 2012. Even the small market teams, such as the Rays, are worth almost a half-billion. All have at least doubled in value. Some, including franchises as diverse as the Sox and Twins, have seen over 600% increase in that valuation. We're not talking about the working poor, here. The only way it doesn't make sense is if you assume the teams have maxed out on what they can spend for talent. They haven't. The "soft cap" isn't soft at all. It hits teams in the one place where they really, really feel it - the young talent that's undervalued, where they make a huge part of their money. Besides, it's always better to report a 20% profit margin to investors, than 10%. Since we can all play amateur economist here, let me give you my take. A fairer valuation for young talent would eventually lead to money flowing into the pocket of older players. That's because the younger talent would eventually be priced at something closer to its real value, after the expected fluctuations in that market washed out. Teams could then make an honest comparison with older talent and decide against paying for six+ years - with risk - to a player whose price is now closer to what he actually gives you. They might then decide to do just what the Sox did three years ago and pay more money for a shorter number of years. That reduces the team's risk, while still providing good value for a player whose may be past his prime but out of whom you could also expect a decent number of wins. There's plenty of money in MLB to go around. The current rules and limits distort the marketplace. Time for a change. I think this ignores economic reality. Yes - there is plenty of money in MLB to go around, but that doesn't mean that margins are increasing. Rather, margins are remaining relatively constant but on a basis of a much larger top line revenue figure, resulting in larger absolute dollar profits. On balance, those margins remain relatively slim, and are seemingly attractive in a world of 0% returns on cash. Either way, valuations are a figment of your balance sheet until you actually have a liquidity event, so they aren't much good to you from a cash flow perspective. Moreover, a significant driver of those increased valuations is scarcity - investors are realizing that in a world of time-shifted viewing, cord cutting and fickle tastes, it's pretty good to have 162 episodes of the local baseball show on every year where people want to watch it live and it is unlikely to ever get cancelled. Not many other programs can say that. If you do away with the draft or bonus limitations, it is a bit unrealistic to expect that the owners will simply dig deeper into their pockets and accept lower margins. Much more likely is that, in the aggregate, those funds are reallocated away from players on the 40 man roster.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 9, 2015 23:29:27 GMT -5
Not just on your say so, I hope. Look at the change in valuations in MLB from 1999 to 2012. Even the small market teams, such as the Rays, are worth almost a half-billion. All have at least doubled in value. Some, including franchises as diverse as the Sox and Twins, have seen over 600% increase in that valuation. We're not talking about the working poor, here. The only way it doesn't make sense is if you assume the teams have maxed out on what they can spend for talent. They haven't. The "soft cap" isn't soft at all. It hits teams in the one place where they really, really feel it - the young talent that's undervalued, where they make a huge part of their money. Besides, it's always better to report a 20% profit margin to investors, than 10%. Since we can all play amateur economist here, let me give you my take. A fairer valuation for young talent would eventually lead to money flowing into the pocket of older players. That's because the younger talent would eventually be priced at something closer to its real value, after the expected fluctuations in that market washed out. Teams could then make an honest comparison with older talent and decide against paying for six+ years - with risk - to a player whose price is now closer to what he actually gives you. They might then decide to do just what the Sox did three years ago and pay more money for a shorter number of years. That reduces the team's risk, while still providing good value for a player whose may be past his prime but out of whom you could also expect a decent number of wins. There's plenty of money in MLB to go around. The current rules and limits distort the marketplace. Time for a change. I think this ignores economic reality. Yes - there is plenty of money in MLB to go around, but that doesn't mean that margins are increasing. Rather, margins are remaining relatively constant but on a basis of a much larger top line revenue figure, resulting in larger absolute dollar profits. On balance, those margins remain relatively slim, and are seemingly attractive in a world of 0% returns on cash. Either way, valuations are a figment of your balance sheet until you actually have a liquidity event, so they aren't much good to you from a cash flow perspective. Moreover, a significant driver of those increased valuations is scarcity - investors are realizing that in a world of time-shifted viewing, cord cutting and fickle tastes, it's pretty good to have 162 episodes of the local baseball show on every year where people want to watch it live and it is unlikely to ever get cancelled. Not many other programs can say that. If you do away with the draft or bonus limitations, it is a bit unrealistic to expect that the owners will simply dig deeper into their pockets and accept lower margins. Much more likely is that, in the aggregate, those funds are reallocated away from players on the 40 man roster. I understand the points your making, but I have a problem with at least a few of the assumptions. First of all, there have been liquidity events and they're eye-poppers: the sad-sack Cubs for $845 million in 2009 - they've got to be worth at least a little more these days I'd say - and a cool $2 billion for the Dodgers in 2012. Not that there haven't been serious questions raised about that one by reputable economists. But that brings me to my second issue. I can read through the balance sheets all day and barely make heads or tales of that margin, there is so much BS being poured into those. We've got Loria and Samson in Miami accruing expenses for the team... that they pocketed for consulting! It's not as if Jeffrey Loria becomes a different person when he takes on that role. It's simply out one pocket and in the other - an expense for the Marlins and their owner becomes income for one of that same owner's other businesses. And how about those Rangers: Don't know about you, but that makes my head spin. That "old scheme" is actually one that Bill Veeck thought up. As much as the other owners at that time disliked the guy, they had no qualms about adopting it. So those "margins" are as robust and tangible as a wet noodle. Look, I'm not arguing for an elimination of the draft, or tearing down the salary walls. How many new guys make it onto a team every year? Maybe three or four? Instead of the minimum salary, start the arbitration early as a function of their production. Keep the increase at some moderate level, say an average of $3.5 million per player instead of $.5 over those first few years. That might be all of an extra $10-$20 million that could be tacked onto the team salary cap. That's chump change for most of these owners. Once that happens I actually expect there would be some consideration given to the value of younger players versus what you'd pay to an older guy, say someone age 29-30 who has a decent skill set, someone you might be able to get on a short term contract. There should be some way to get a little more competition going for their services. At this point, the FOs are voting with their feet, and marching over to the draft pools to collect extra cheap young talent. MLB is going to have to rework it's business model, I think. The indentured servitude stuff just creates significant distortions. Moreover, their scales for minor leaguers are under legal attack. How long is it going to be before there's discovery on one of those funky balance sheets? Do they really want that action? Like I said, time for a change.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 10, 2015 22:33:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 11, 2015 7:37:39 GMT -5
Are 2B really that hard to find that Olivera is actually rumored to get $70+ million as an average 2B who is 29 and might need TJS? I don't get it. I wouldn't pay half that. These rumors must just be floated by agents.
|
|
|