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.
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 4, 2015 12:33:56 GMT -5
The fact that the Yankees have apparently realized that free agency (with its inevitable overpays for decline years) is not the best way to build sustainable success does not imply that that organization has suddenly decided to stop spending money. This is an organization that spent $30m on 16-year-old IFAs six months ago, something that would have been laughed off this board as absurd if someone had brought it up. They're not spending less, just spending differently. And Moncada absolutely fits into that strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jan 4, 2015 15:20:56 GMT -5
The fact that the Yankees have apparently realized that free agency (with its inevitable overpays for decline years) is not the best way to build sustainable success does not imply that that organization has suddenly decided to stop spending money. This is an organization that spent $30m on 16-year-old IFAs six months ago, something that would have been laughed off this board as absurd if someone had brought it up. They're not spending less, just spending differently. And Moncada absolutely fits into that strategy. Yes there has definitely been an operational transformation. The Yankees seem to be looking to get younger and leaner with payroll, at least temporarily, while cornering the international market as a quick way to power up the farm system. Moncada fits right into that plan. It looked like the Yankees tried to emulate the Sox of 2013 last off-season and now appear to being doing something similar again. At one point I referred to a conversation of a Yankee employee who, while playing golf with a relative, blithely stated that the Yankees could spend $500M and still make a profit. Whether that was just empty braggadocio who knows? Regardless, the Yankees are not going to hoard their treasure just move the target. They have taken heed of the definition of insanity in today's baseball world. But I would be surprised if Moncada does not come down to the Yankees and maybe the Dodgers who had a 277M payroll last season. The Dodgers apparently have the money and the willingness. OTOH Scherzer in that rotation...Phew! |
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 4, 2015 15:28:15 GMT -5
Lol that's Nick Cafardo ladies and gentlements. Could we please never take him seriously again?
And no this is not a go ahead to derail this thread with Cafardo nonsense. I just couldn't resist.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 4, 2015 15:35:28 GMT -5
At one point I referred to a conversation of a Yankee employee who, while playing golf with a relative, blithely stated that the Yankees could spend $500M and still make a profit. Whether that was just empty braggadocio who knows? Regardless, the Yankees are not going to hoard their treasure just move the target. They have taken heed of the definition of insanity in today's baseball I read that quote in a Kiley McDaniel article. Must have heard it from the same guy. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 4, 2015 21:15:31 GMT -5
Not to get too off topic here but if it's true that the Yankees could spend 500m and turn a profit, and in reality they don't even spend half that amount, only further proves that they have a budget, just like everyone else. "Technically we could spend this" and "This is the amount we have determined makes financial sense for us" are two completely different things.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jan 4, 2015 22:17:09 GMT -5
Who was the last really good left handed or switch hitter to come out of Cuba? It seems like the really good hitters out of Cuba are almost invariably right handed. It depends on your definition of "really good" but potential names could be Kendrys Morales, Leonys Martin, and Alex Sanchez. |
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Jan 5, 2015 8:54:42 GMT -5
I realize that if talent is available you make the move despite the position he plays. That said, it would seem other teams have more of a need for Moncada, particularly the Yankees with their hole at 2B relying on rooks.
With 3B and 2B in good hands for the next three to five years, there would seem to be nowhere for Moncada to play if he is ML ready in a year or so. Can he play another position? Panda has made it clear he signed here to play third. Moving him to first after Napoli's contract could be problematic.
I still go hard after Yoan and worry about the consequences later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 5, 2015 9:04:15 GMT -5
I realize that if talent is available you make the move despite the position he plays. That said, it would seem other teams have more of a need for Moncada, particularly the Yankees with their hole at 2B relying on rooks. With 3B and 2B in good hands for the next three to five years, there would seem to be nowhere for Moncada to play if he is ML ready in a year or so. Can he play another position? Panda has made it clear he signed here to play third. Moving him to first after Napoli's contract could be problematic. I still go hard after Yoan and worry about the consequences later. Given that he's 19, it's highly unlikely he'll be ready in a year or so. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 5, 2015 9:04:34 GMT -5
I realize that if talent is available you make the move despite the position he plays. That said, it would seem other teams have more of a need for Moncada, particularly the Yankees with their hole at 2B relying on rooks. With 3B and 2B in good hands for the next three to five years, there would seem to be nowhere for Moncada to play if he is ML ready in a year or so. Can he play another position? Panda has made it clear he signed here to play third. Moving him to first after Napoli's contract could be problematic. I still go hard after Yoan and worry about the consequences later. Moncada probably would do well with 2-3 years in the minors, I'd guess. I don't think he's considered a Trout/Harper wunderkind. They could find room for him, considering Papi will likely retire and Napoli would be gone before he's ready. |
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 639
|
Post by alnipper on Jan 5, 2015 12:35:03 GMT -5
I have no idea how long he will be in the minors. He will benefit from being in the minors until he is ready. The jump from playing in Cuba until around 19 and major league baseball is a big step. My guess would be a year and a half to two years.
If the Sox sign Moncada he'll end up playing 3B. We'll have a hole at 1B in 2016, which can be filled for a year. We can then play Moncada and Panda at first and third. So, by the time Moncada is ready we will have a need at first or third base. His timeline could be just right for the Sox.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 5, 2015 13:23:09 GMT -5
Kind of an abstract way of thinking about this, but lets say Harper (2010) and Moncada were both in the same rule 4 draft pool, who would go first? This is also assuming Moncada would sign for something similar to Harpers signing bonus (9.9M ML contract). If the answer is 2010 Harper, are we then saying that if 2010 Harper was a 2015 IFA he would cost a commitment of somewhere around or above 100M?
|
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 5, 2015 13:55:23 GMT -5
Kind of an abstract way of thinking about this, but lets say Harper (2010) and Moncada were both in the same rule 4 draft pool, who would go first? This is also assuming Moncada would sign for something similar to Harpers signing bonus (9.9M ML contract). If the answer is 2010 Harper, are we then saying that if 2010 Harper was a 2015 IFA he would cost a commitment of somewhere around or above 100M? Harper and yes. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 5, 2015 19:58:21 GMT -5
I realize that if talent is available you make the move despite the position he plays. That said, it would seem other teams have more of a need for Moncada, particularly the Yankees with their hole at 2B relying on rooks. With 3B and 2B in good hands for the next three to five years, there would seem to be nowhere for Moncada to play if he is ML ready in a year or so. Can he play another position? Panda has made it clear he signed here to play third. Moving him to first after Napoli's contract could be problematic. I still go hard after Yoan and worry about the consequences later. If there's one thing these past six months have shown us it's that the Red Sox aren't afraid to have a surplus at a certain position. |
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 5, 2015 21:33:25 GMT -5
Kind of an abstract way of thinking about this, but lets say Harper (2010) and Moncada were both in the same rule 4 draft pool, who would go first? This is also assuming Moncada would sign for something similar to Harpers signing bonus (9.9M ML contract). If the answer is 2010 Harper, are we then saying that if 2010 Harper was a 2015 IFA he would cost a commitment of somewhere around or above 100M? Harper and yes. Yes. I believe I compared Moncada to Harper a few pages ago. |
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jan 5, 2015 22:37:05 GMT -5
While he played in Cuban National League last two years he held his own. Thus I assume that he is ready to play AA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 6, 2015 8:41:29 GMT -5
While he played in Cuban National League last two years he held his own. Thus I assume that he is ready to play AA. It's good, but not outstanding or anything. Could see him starting in Low or High A. Compare with Soler, who spent his first season in Rookie/Low A getting acclimated, his next in High A in an injury-shortened year, then 2014 starting in Double-A and reaching the bigs. Gun to my head I'd guess High A is where he starts. |
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 6, 2015 9:56:25 GMT -5
Kind of an abstract way of thinking about this, but lets say Harper (2010) and Moncada were both in the same rule 4 draft pool, who would go first? This is also assuming Moncada would sign for something similar to Harpers signing bonus (9.9M ML contract). If the answer is 2010 Harper, are we then saying that if 2010 Harper was a 2015 IFA he would cost a commitment of somewhere around or above 100M? Harper and yes. And that, my friends, is why the owners love themselves some draft ... |
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Jan 6, 2015 11:19:27 GMT -5
I don't think we get this guy. Do you really think the sox will shell out upwards of 80 million for a completely unproven commodity? Sure, the sox have plenty of money, but every team has a budget, and the biggest priority is upgrading the major league team. Given that, Im guessing the sox know it's not a good allocation of resources to blow 80 million on someone who won't play in the MLB in at least 2 years, probably only has like a 20% chance of being a first division starter or better and a 60% chance of being 80 million down the drain
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 7, 2015 8:23:31 GMT -5
I don't think we get this guy. Do you really think the sox will shell out upwards of 80 million for a completely unproven commodity? Sure, the sox have plenty of money, but every team has a budget, and the biggest priority is upgrading the major league team. Given that, Im guessing the sox know it's not a good allocation of resources to blow 80 million on someone who won't play in the MLB in at least 2 years, probably only has like a 20% chance of being a first division starter or better and a 60% chance of being 80 million down the drain And he might be worth $200 million. I think your odds are pretty far off. There aren't many good ways to spend money now without paying for declining players. This is a better place to spend. |
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Jan 7, 2015 11:21:51 GMT -5
I don't think we get this guy. Do you really think the sox will shell out upwards of 80 million for a completely unproven commodity? Sure, the sox have plenty of money, but every team has a budget, and the biggest priority is upgrading the major league team. Given that, Im guessing the sox know it's not a good allocation of resources to blow 80 million on someone who won't play in the MLB in at least 2 years, probably only has like a 20% chance of being a first division starter or better and a 60% chance of being 80 million down the drain And he might be worth $200 million. I think your odds are pretty far off. There aren't many good ways to spend money now without paying for declining players. This is a better place to spend. The odds were off the top of my head, and they were wrong. The odds are more like 40% chance he busts 20% chance he's a mediocre starter, and a 40% chance hes a good starter or better. From here www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects. That's a typical top 10 prospect, Moncada might have higher risk due to being unknown but I'll assume he doesn't. Still those aren't good odds for an 80 million dollar investment and could hurt the major league team if he isn't good enough to start for us which is likely. I'd rather spend on free agents |
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jan 7, 2015 11:29:16 GMT -5
And he might be worth $200 million. I think your odds are pretty far off. There aren't many good ways to spend money now without paying for declining players. This is a better place to spend. The odds were off the top of my head, and they were wrong. The odds are more like 40% chance he busts 20% chance he's a mediocre starter, and a 40% chance hes a good starter or better. From here www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects. That's a typical top 10 prospect, Moncada might have higher risk due to being unknown but I'll assume he doesn't. Still those aren't good odds for an 80 million dollar investment and could hurt the major league team if he isn't good enough to start for us which is likely. I'd rather spend on free agents If there's a 60% chance he busts, and a 40% chance he's a $200 million star, then he's worth... $80 million. |
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Jan 7, 2015 11:34:09 GMT -5
The odds were off the top of my head, and they were wrong. The odds are more like 40% chance he busts 20% chance he's a mediocre starter, and a 40% chance hes a good starter or better. From here www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects. That's a typical top 10 prospect, Moncada might have higher risk due to being unknown but I'll assume he doesn't. Still those aren't good odds for an 80 million dollar investment and could hurt the major league team if he isn't good enough to start for us which is likely. I'd rather spend on free agents If there's a 60% chance he busts, and a 40% chance he's a $200 million star, then he's worth... $80 million. 40% chance he's an above average starter, not a star |
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jan 7, 2015 11:47:34 GMT -5
40% Above Average Starter (3 WAR) = $18mm.
20% Average starter (2 WAR) = $12mm.
40% Busts = 0mm
Per year, x 6 years of team control (with no discount to PV, etc.) = 7.2 + 2.4 * 6 = 60mm.
Tweak the numbers a little in lots of directions (x% chance of superstar = 5%? $25mm a year?; Move your WAR/$ figure to 7mm?). Either way, you can get to the neighborhood pretty easily .
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 7, 2015 11:50:23 GMT -5
I don't think you can take that study and apply it to whether a team should sign a given player for a given dollar amount. What the study shows is the relative success rates of players based on where and if they're ranked on BA's Top 100. What it does not show is the relative success rate of a player of a particular pedigree. You can't just take a player in the top 10 in a given year and peg a certain percentage chance of his being a success based on this kind of broad study.
Not all players are created equal, not all sets of top 100 prospects are created equal, and not every player is ranked a given place for the same reason. Prospect evaluation requires case-by-case analysis. Determining whether Moncada specifically is worth a given dollar amount requires scouting the actual player and evaluating him. Maybe, by doing that, you could come up with the kind of percentages that you're using here and then make a cost-benefit analysis.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,202 
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 7, 2015 12:31:12 GMT -5
The odds were off the top of my head, and they were wrong. The odds are more like 40% chance he busts 20% chance he's a mediocre starter, and a 40% chance hes a good starter or better. From here www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects. That's a typical top 10 prospect, Moncada might have higher risk due to being unknown but I'll assume he doesn't. Still those aren't good odds for an 80 million dollar investment and could hurt the major league team if he isn't good enough to start for us which is likely. I'd rather spend on free agents If he's a "typical top 10 prospect" such as is studied in that study, he's not worth huge bucks. But if he's a 1.1, or even one of the better-looking 1.1's of his era, then those odds are not relevant, are they? Here are the 1.1 picks for the last few years, with career WAR. Bats picked 1.1 look pretty low-risk. www.baseball-reference.com/draft/ |
|
|
