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.
Sox Problems Scouting Professional FAs?
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 7, 2014 13:43:20 GMT -5
No right answer, of course, but just wondering how y'all feel about the following statement:
The Red Sox have had significant problems adequately scouting professional international free agents (i.e. non-prospect, over age 23 free agents) over the last 5 years.
Among the players signed by other teams:
Jose Abreu Norichika Aoki Yoenis Cespedes Yu Darvish* Hisashi Iwakuma Masihiro Tanaka* Yasiel Puig
Players signed by the Red Sox over the same period:
Dalier Hinojosa Aldaberto Ibarra Jose Iglesias Juan Carlos Linares Junichi Tazawa
The * designates players who received more than $100M in compensation - although one could argue that the posting fees are "off book" since they do not count toward the Luxury Tax, and, as such, can be handled accounting devices are separate transitions that can be handled a variety of ways by teams - for the sake of this discussion let's assume that this is all "team money." That fact actually adds to the premise here since the Red Sox are one of only 6-8 teams that can legitimately afford such an expense, based on past business practices.
Given all this, and that players in the first list have proven or are well on their way to proving that they were relative bargains and in most cases are All Star or near All Star level performers (except for Tanaka who, despite his stellar debut is just 12 starts into his career), do the Red Sox need to reevaluate their organizational practices in scouting these players, and their philosophy in signing these players?
My answer, since I'm starting this thread is yes. While they found great value for relatively low upfront costs in Tazawa and Iglesias, they have missed on all of the players in the first list. However virtually all of the Sox players were signed for less than $10M and most for "reliever money." But when it comes to spending more than $9 million on these players, the Red Sox have kept them, for the most part, at arms length, as it turns out, to the team's detriment. In the case of the Japanese players in particular, there is often as much, if not more, information as there is for any US free agent.
Do the Red Sox need to make a significant change in the way they do business in this area?
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jun 7, 2014 14:13:01 GMT -5
Does this mean 23 of the 30 MLB teams have "significant problems adequately scouting"?
This is absolutely crazy. There is not nearly enough information to conclude that the Red Sox have a problem at all in this area, never mind a significant one. All it would take is signing the next guy and suddenly they are in the top 27% of teams. Would that mean they "excel at scouting"?
You literally bring no other proof other than them not signing 7 guys. The list of guys they did sign is a completely different class of free agent. They were low money signings. There is no comparison outside of the country they were born in.
EDIT: Also, if you're talking about scouting inadequacies - they missed being the high bidder on Abreu by less than 10%, so they clearly liked him. Do we really have enough info to conclude that is a scouting miss?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 7, 2014 14:13:13 GMT -5
SSS.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jun 7, 2014 14:16:03 GMT -5
I won't say much, just say that your assumption that if they don't sign them then they must have done a bad job scouting them is completely without merit. There can only be one team that signs these players. That doesn't mean that every other team didn't do a good job of scouting them.
Edit: Or what chavopepe2 said.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 7, 2014 14:31:55 GMT -5
Does this mean 23 of the 30 MLB teams have "significant problems adequately scouting"? This is absolutely crazy. There is not nearly enough information to conclude that the Red Sox have a problem at all in this area, never mind a significant one. All it would take is signing the next guy and suddenly they are in the top 27% of teams. Would that mean they "excel at scouting"? You literally bring no other proof other than them not signing 7 guys. The list of guys they did sign is a completely different class of free agent. They were low money signings. There is no comparison outside of the country they were born in. EDIT: Also, if you're talking about scouting inadequacies - they missed being the high bidder on Abreu by less than 10%, so they clearly liked him. Do we really have enough info to conclude that is a scouting miss? And there is no proof to bring, other than the fact that the Sox have missed on every single one of the high performance, high impact international free agents. Like I said, just wondering what others here believe.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jun 7, 2014 14:36:05 GMT -5
Does this mean 23 of the 30 MLB teams have "significant problems adequately scouting"? This is absolutely crazy. There is not nearly enough information to conclude that the Red Sox have a problem at all in this area, never mind a significant one. All it would take is signing the next guy and suddenly they are in the top 27% of teams. Would that mean they "excel at scouting"? You literally bring no other proof other than them not signing 7 guys. The list of guys they did sign is a completely different class of free agent. They were low money signings. There is no comparison outside of the country they were born in. EDIT: Also, if you're talking about scouting inadequacies - they missed being the high bidder on Abreu by less than 10%, so they clearly liked him. Do we really have enough info to conclude that is a scouting miss? And there is no proof to bring, other than the fact that the Sox have missed on every single one of the high performance, high impact international free agents. Like I said, just wondering what others here believe. If that is all the proof there is, then there is no proof at all.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jun 7, 2014 14:39:59 GMT -5
Does this mean 23 of the 30 MLB teams have "significant problems adequately scouting"? This is absolutely crazy. There is not nearly enough information to conclude that the Red Sox have a problem at all in this area, never mind a significant one. All it would take is signing the next guy and suddenly they are in the top 27% of teams. Would that mean they "excel at scouting"? You literally bring no other proof other than them not signing 7 guys. The list of guys they did sign is a completely different class of free agent. They were low money signings. There is no comparison outside of the country they were born in. EDIT: Also, if you're talking about scouting inadequacies - they missed being the high bidder on Abreu by less than 10%, so they clearly liked him. Do we really have enough info to conclude that is a scouting miss? And there is no proof to bring, other than the fact that the Sox have missed on every single one of the high performance, high impact international free agents. Like I said, just wondering what others here believe. Some would consider finishing second in the AL Rookie of the Year race to be "High Performing."
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 7, 2014 14:46:35 GMT -5
And there is no proof to bring, other than the fact that the Sox have missed on every single one of the high performance, high impact international free agents. Like I said, just wondering what others here believe. Some would consider finishing second in the AL Rookie of the Year race to be "High Performing." And, as I mentioned above, I am referring to former professional international players, not teenagers signed as "free agent prospects." Unless you think Tanaka will finish 2nd in AL Rookie of the Year? Or perhaps Abreu.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jun 7, 2014 14:50:15 GMT -5
Abreu in particular would've been a great fit.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jun 7, 2014 14:57:09 GMT -5
Some would consider finishing second in the AL Rookie of the Year race to be "High Performing." And, as I mentioned above, I am referring to former professional international players, not teenagers signed as "free agent prospects." Unless you think Tanaka will finish 2nd in AL Rookie of the Year? Or perhaps Abreu. So you took an amazingly small sample size...and then made it smaller. BTW, if you didn't want me to consider Iglesias then you probably should have taken him out of your initial post.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 7, 2014 14:57:19 GMT -5
And not all these guys in the top list were signed for huge money, either. Aoki was signed for 3 years at just under $5M plus a $2.1M posting fee and he was a #+ WAR OF in each of his first 2 years.
Iwakuma was initially signed for $1.5M.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 7, 2014 14:58:16 GMT -5
I'll note that you conveniently set your cutoff date so your analysis does not include Daisuke Matsusaka ($103m). It also doesn't include Kosuke Fukudome ($48m) or Kei Igawa ($46m). Your list also omits notable busts signed in the last five years like Tsuyoshi Nishioka ($14.57m), Tsuyoshi Wada ($8.15m), Yunesky Maya ($6m), and Kyuji Fujikawa ($9.5m). It also fails to list guys like Miguel Alfredo Gonzalez ($12m), Alexander Guerrero ($28m), and Erisbel Arruebarrena ($25m), whose futures are still very unclear.
I know mgoetze said SSS in jest, but it's an important point to recognize. Yeah, if you look at a stretch where four or five veterans IFA signings in a row look good (so far), it's easy and tempting to draw the hasty conclusion that veteran IFAs are the new market inefficiency and the Red Sox are idiots for not considering it. This is especially true if you cherrypick the listed names so you only look at the guys who look like hits. But if that's your only evidence for as strong a claim as suggesting that the front office needs to "make a significant change in the way they do business" (what, fire the scouting department? Sign Carbonell or Maeda at any cost?), it isn't enough.
This is just as asinine as looking back at any draft and saying the Red Sox should have drafted so-and-so or looking back at any offseason and saying that they should have signed so-and-so and using that as the basis to criticize the front office.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 7, 2014 15:01:17 GMT -5
And, as I mentioned above, I am referring to former professional international players, not teenagers signed as "free agent prospects." Unless you think Tanaka will finish 2nd in AL Rookie of the Year? Or perhaps Abreu. So you took an amazingly small sample size...and then made it smaller. BTW, if you didn't want me to consider Iglesias then you probably should have taken him out of your initial post. Nope, I thought you were talking about this year. I actually think Iglesias should've never been traded in the Peavy deal and that Peavy didn't give this team anything last year that Workman couldn't have provided. And FWIW I thought Iggy should've won ROY because he played essentially a full season whereas Myers didn't. I thought he was penalized for what voters thought he "really" was and Myers was rewarded for what the same voters projected he would be. And to be honest I think most scouts would agree free agent evaluation is much different than prospect evaluation. The players I am referring to are free agents more like MLB or minor league free agents, rather than raw prospects.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 7, 2014 15:19:36 GMT -5
I'll note that you conveniently set your cutoff date so your analysis does not include Daisuke Matsusaka ($103m). It also doesn't include Kosuke Fukudome ($48m) or Kei Igawa ($46m). Your list also omits notable busts signed in the last five years like Tsuyoshi Nishioka ($14.57m), Tsuyoshi Wada ($8.15m), Yunesky Maya ($6m), and Kyuji Fujikawa ($9.5m). It also fails to list guys like Miguel Alfredo Gonzalez ($12m), Alexander Guerrero ($28m), and Erisbel Arruebarrena ($25m), whose futures are still very unclear. I know mgoetze said SSS in jest, but it's an important point to recognize. Yeah, if you look at a stretch where four or five veterans IFA signings in a row look good (so far), it's easy and tempting to draw the hasty conclusion that veteran IFAs are the new market inefficiency and the Red Sox are idiots for not considering it. This is especially true if you cherrypick the listed names so you only look at the guys who look like hits. But if that's your only evidence for as strong a claim as suggesting that the front office needs to "make a significant change in the way they do business" (what, fire the scouting department? Sign Carbonell or Maeda at any cost?), it isn't enough. This is just as asinine as looking back at any draft and saying the Red Sox should have drafted so-and-so or looking back at any offseason and saying that they should have signed so-and-so and using that as the basis to criticize the front office. I'm pretty sure they shook up their scouting structure around 09 or 10. But go ahead an add in the others from 09 onward because I did not have a complete list on hand. If no one thinks they are dropping the ball here that's fine with me. Just looking for opinions. I will add that, as I've mentioned Darvish in particular sticks out to me as I saw him live 5 times the year before he was posted. I walked away every time wondering how any professional scout for a team of means could walk away from his performances and, knowing his age and physical build, and recommend anything less than going all in on a posting fee. Everyone misses on players. I am just wondering if the Sox are valuing the scouting of these types of players since they have missed on this list of good to great players, all but one of or two whom it could be argued, are bargains. I'll also add that it's been widely reported that many MLB teams over the last several years have cut down their scouting staffs - the Yankees included - yet the Sox and a few others (Texas, StL, Cubs, Nats, As) have reportedly keep theirs at strong levels. So, yeah, a lot of teams missed, but a lot of teams also reportedly don't apply the resources to scouting that the Sox do).
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Jun 7, 2014 15:47:39 GMT -5
I think this line of thinking is the professional FA signing version of scouting the stat line. In this case a conclusion is being made on the process by analyzing the end result.
They could have done an excellent scouting process in every single one of these FA's and still end up empty handed, with someone else doing a better job or simply having a higher value attached to the same scouted skills. From the top of my head, two FA's had stories regarding their Sox evaluation process made public, Darvish and Abreu. In one we weren't in the running from the start due to roster construction and payroll commitments, the other we finished up second.
It's like in the MLB, if a team has a consistently good (playoff) team but never wins it, it doesn't mean they don't have a good process in place, like Oakland.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 7, 2014 16:35:26 GMT -5
I will add that, as I've mentioned Darvish in particular sticks out to me as I saw him live 5 times the year before he was posted. I walked away every time wondering how any professional scout for a team of means could walk away from his performances and, knowing his age and physical build, and recommend anything less than going all in on a posting fee. Everyone misses on players. I am just wondering if the Sox are valuing the scouting of these types of players since they have missed on this list of good to great players, all but one of or two whom it could be argued, are bargains. You've mentioned this story pretty much every time you bring up Darvish, and it's still a non-starter. If any team knew with a significant degree of certainty how good Darvish was going to be, his posting fee would have been a hell of a lot higher than it was. Bully for you for being such a great amateur scout, but based on how that transaction went down (i.e., a sealed auction where the winning bid was, in retrospect, much lower than it should have been), the issue for both the Red Sox as well as every other team in the majors was more one of player evaluation (i.e., how good would he be?) than one of valuation (i.e., how much is this level of expected performance worth?). That's true even of the Rangers-- if they knew he would be an annual Cy Young contender, they would have submitted a higher bid than they did. Remember, it's not a question of the Red Sox literally not scouting these players. It's not even a question of them not scouting these guys enough, as there's plenty of evidence that they do their due diligence on every potential acquisition, not to mention that getting additional looks at a player doesn't ensure that you have a better handle on their true talent level (see: paralysis by analysis). Thus, it looks like it's just a question of you wanting the Red Sox to scout better, without any specific reasons why their current scouting process is flawed beyond "but they didn't sign these good players!" To which the response is, yes, it would be great if the front office made the perfect read every time, but that's obviously not a reasonable standard to hold them to. A more reasonable criticism would be to argue that this front office has been too risk adverse in their unwillingness to shoulder significant downside risk (in the form of potential albatross long-term contracts), even when it comes with the possibility of plentiful surplus value (or at least having a very good player on your roster at market rates). If, for instance, it turns out the Red Sox scouts filed reports stating that Tanaka and Abreu were going to be as good as they've been so far, but the front office decided not to bid on them anyways because they don't want to sign any non-Trout player to a long-term deal-- that would be something to criticize them for. Or if it turns out that they're flat out unwilling to sign Jon Lester at any nine-figure price tag, even though they think he'll continue to be as good as he's been this year going forward. But, there's not a lot of evidence that the front office or ownership actually operates that way, and I think their purported unwillingness to sign players to long-term contracts is being exaggerated (see my analysis on the Lester thread). You certainly can't reach that conclusion based on their (lack of) veteran IFA signings over the past few years.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 7, 2014 16:55:00 GMT -5
I think we've both been in agreement on recent organizational risk aversion. I think DiceK rattled them and Crawford rattled them more. But it shouldn't create an absolute when it comes to paying market value for talent at the very top of its game. The Manny deal and Pedro extension remain sound examples. One could argue this team may have 2 WS ring if it went after Cabrera when people were saying he'll be too old/fat in the last years of his current desl. Or Grienke, for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jun 7, 2014 17:05:23 GMT -5
I think we've both been in agreement on recent organizational risk aversion. I think DiceK rattled them and Crawford rattled them more. But it shouldn't create an absolute when it comes to paying market value for talent at the very top of its game. The Manny deal and Pedro extension remain sound examples. One could argue this team may have 2 WS ring if it went after Cabrera when people were saying he'll be too old/fat in the last years of his current desl. Or Grienke, for that matter. This sort of goes back to the original point. Them not signing these 7 players are not proof that they have created an absolute.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 7, 2014 17:18:57 GMT -5
Neither are presented as absolutes.
Sox do an A job scouting amateur talent under this ownership group, esp given their frequent high number draft position. I would give them a B+ on their scouting of MLB free agents under the same tenure. Their record with Intl pros seems to be the one point in thiis mix that decidedly lags behind. Just finished the newest Freakonomics book which in large part is about this very thing - when outcomes are substandard for similar challenges it is usually time to re-evaluate the process, approach or/and even framing of the challenge itself.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 7, 2014 19:10:19 GMT -5
It seems that you basically want them to sign every big name available so we're bursting at the seams with Tanaka's and Puig's.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 7, 2014 20:00:28 GMT -5
It seems that you basically want them to sign every big name available so we're bursting at the seams with Tanaka's and Puig's. That wouldn't suck. Bit really, I am curious because outside of Darvish and Tanaka these weren't "big" names and their deals (again exept for Tanaka) represent relative values. Identifying talent, and value talent in particular is a strength of this organization.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jun 7, 2014 20:41:13 GMT -5
Were the Sox not in on any of those free agents? I thought that the Sox were within a few million of signing a few of them, and if the Abreu situation was not during the World Series (whereby signing Napoli's replacement while Napoli is playing in the World Series) I believe that the Red Sox could have had Abreu. Furthermore, getting outbid by another team does not mean that the Red Sox did not do their due diligence in scouting. The bidding process is not an open auction, we bid in a vacuum and are largely unaware of the other teams and offers. (Cutaway to Boras "mystery team" joke)
Furthermore, some of the players contracts REQUIRE that the players play at a torrid and almost unsustainable pace to be worth that amount. I'm thinking largely of Tanaka and Abreu. So even if they are playing well, they can still be underperforming economically due to the large contract they required.
Yes, I'd love the Red Sox to have had some more international eye candy, and it sucks to see some of the above players do really well for other teams, but I cannot say that the Red Sox are "mis-scouting" players. I would love to see them take some more chances, but that's easy to say when it isn't my money, my fans I have to answer to, or my salary cap.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 7, 2014 20:57:31 GMT -5
I think jmei hit on something. The reason they have missed on these guys is because they have been unwilling to make huge contract offers in the wake of the Matsusaka signing. The way he pitched here brought a lot of criticism upon the organization and you know Henry and Lucchino are very sensitive to criticism.
Look Guidas a lot of the guys you mentioned were signed to contracts that were considered huge at the time. There isn't a lot of information on these players since you can't exactly send scouts to Cuba. A lot of them, have been successful but there are going to be as some busts. The two Dodgers middle infielders maybe just that.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jun 7, 2014 22:09:16 GMT -5
The analysis should be about each signing in a vacuum to find if there is an underlying problem that should be fixed.
Let's look at Puig for example. The only time international scouts get enough time to look at Cuban players is when they are with the National team. It's well known now that Puig was suspended from the National team when he was caught trying to leave. So that cuts the time team have to gather history on him, they might have seen him but the history was very limited. Then he shows up in Mexico has a huge workout and gets a 40m contract that everybody and their mothers thought was insane. Now, it looks like a bargain and the insane are the ones that thought it was insane but that's revisionist history at the highest level. Nobody ever thinks it's a good idea to give someone 40m based largely on a workout. Maybe they had some connections or something and it has worked out but that was a HUGE risk to take, even they would admit that.
All these is to say that we can't lump all these signings together and draw conclusions, each signing has it's own unique background that needs to be examine to see if there is a problem or not.
I had been thinking about this subject and my thoughts are that I don't it's a money issue, specially with the Cuban players, it's about wether these guys fit the organizational philosophy when it comes to scouting. I'm sure the Red Sox don't have a cookie cutter approach to scouting but there are some things they look for, let's use the word I've seen associated with Football; traits. Cuban hitters, Latin Americans in general, are known to be overly aggressive at the plate and adverse of walking. Something we know the Red Sox value is an advance hit-tool because without a hit-tool one can have the best tools in the world but they won't play. The Cuban hitter they've gone after the harder happened to be unlike his other Cuban teammates in Jose Abreu who demonstrated a good approach in Cuba and had an extensive history with the National team where something like hit-tool can be better scouted.
Perhaps they should be more flexible or I'm talking out of my a$$ which is quite possible and this is not even in their consideration.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,200
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on Jun 7, 2014 22:53:39 GMT -5
Yankees fan mentality right here.
Big time Monday Morning quarterbacking.
|
|
|