2013-14 International Free Agency Thread

[Guest]

Yeah, if they sign Tseng, there's no way they can't go over the cap.

 

So if they do this, then the only point in trading for slot money was to save on the amount of money they would pay in penalties?

 

 

That's disheartening.

 

That, or Kyle's theory that they misjudged the trade market for international cap space. They tried their best to get Jimenez signed under the cap (Torreyes trade) and once they couldn't, they decided to sign everyone.

[davell]

Sounds like a signing that would be along the lines of the pre-new CBA, "screw it, we have to spend the money now" variety. Interesting guy, but worthy of throwing away next year's options?

According to Phil Rogers(yeah, sounds stupid to use him as an authority, but he mentioned this last week) the Cubs will blow by the spending limits this year, because they like the class better than next year. Next year, they'll take a quantity approach on pitching and look to possibly trade some of their space as well.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

That, or Kyle's theory that they misjudged the trade market for international cap space. They tried their best to get Jimenez signed under the cap (Torreyes trade) and once they couldn't, they decided to sign everyone.

 

The fact that we've had some budget-saving trades could also fit in with that theory.

[davell]

My guess is this: They planned to be in the 10% penalty range, but they had to pay Jimenez more than they had figured. Now, they'll just try and load up on as much as possible, to compensate for it. My guess(hope) is they'll spend double their allotment. Another possibility is they made the Torreyes trade to establish a general baseline for what space is worth, so they can then ask other teams for a specific return next year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Another possibility is they made the Torreyes trade to establish a general baseline for what space is worth, so they can then ask other teams for a specific return next year.

 

I keep hearing that theory floated, and I'm just going to flat-out say it: That's a really stupid idea. Nobody's going to pay more for IFA space just because we paid more for it this year.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Hairyducked Idiot

[jersey cubs fan]

Another possibility is they made the Torreyes trade to establish a general baseline for what space is worth, so they can then ask other teams for a specific return next year.

 

I don't see how that would do much good. You have to give us X for this since we gave the others guys X for it last year. If the Cubs are the team setting the market, and doing so alone, the market isn't really set.

[Guest]

Another possibility is they made the Torreyes trade to establish a general baseline for what space is worth, so they can then ask other teams for a specific return next year.

 

I don't see how that would do much good. You have to give us X for this since we gave the others guys X for it last year. If the Cubs are the team setting the market, and doing so alone, the market isn't really set.

 

Yeah. That's not a likely theory.

[davell]

Yeah, there would need to be a few other trades happen to set a real baseline. You guys are right, it wouldn't work otherwise.

[Guest]

In the link below, Jesse Sanchez has the Erling Moreno signing at $650,000, not $800,000.

 

Jesse Sanchez[/url]"]"We really like the depth and premium talent in this particular class," general manager Jed Hoyer said Tuesday. "We made a decision to be aggressive and acquire some international slots. I don't think we're the last team that will look to add international slots. ... For us, we felt really good about that, and it was something we discussed that if we had the opportunity to add money to go after some players, we'd do it."

 

For now, the club is safe from an overage penalty. But the team's pending deal with Jimenez, which is expected to be worth $2.8 million, would put them $749,700 -- or 13.6 percent -- over their pool and into the penalty phase. Teams that exceed their pools by 10 to 15 percent are not allowed to sign a player for more than $500,000 during the 2014-2015 signing period and have to pay 100-percent tax on the pool overage.

 

The Cubs can still acquire $1,315,600 in slot money from other teams to avoid any penalty, because the Collective Bargaining Agreement allows teams to add up to 50 percent of the initial bonus pool, which in Chicago's case was $4,557,200.

 

It's unclear if the Cubs are still trying to acquire more international slot money. What's certain are the current penalty guidelines put into practice last year.

 

Jesse confirmed in a Twitter conversation with Brett Taylor that while initial reports were that Erling would agree to $800k, he did actually sign for $650k.

[Guest]

Based on the current rules, the smart thing to do is actually blow out the spending limit in year one, sell your quota for prospects in year two, blow out the limit in year three, etc.

 

It works best if you're the only team doing it, though. Once you're more than 15% over, just outbid everyone for every guy you're interested in. It's only money at that point.

 

Invest $30M to sweep as much of the board as you can and tell yourself you'll be a lot better off than spending that money on a single Cuban refugee.

[craig]

The "smartness" involved, of course, involves paying $2 per dollar. You need to outbid the market to get a guy in the first place, so you're paying $1 mill for guys that other teams won't pay a million for. With the tax, you're paying $2 million for guys that nobody else will give a million for.

[Guest]

The "smartness" involved, of course, involves paying $2 per dollar. You need to outbid the market to get a guy in the first place, so you're paying $1 mill for guys that other teams won't pay a million for. With the tax, you're paying $2 million for guys that nobody else will give a million for.

yep! But then again, it isn't my money.

 

Primarily, I'm looking at this in comparison to spending $30M on a single, older pitcher (prospect) like Gonzalez. The double money you're paying in this market is still better invested than the totally unconstrained spending on the age 23+ guys from Cuba.

 

However, it is one of the few available avenues to inject talent into the system with no other cost but money.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The "smartness" involved, of course, involves paying $2 per dollar. You need to outbid the market to get a guy in the first place, so you're paying $1 mill for guys that other teams won't pay a million for. With the tax, you're paying $2 million for guys that nobody else will give a million for.

yep! But then again, it isn't my money.

 

Primarily, I'm looking at this in comparison to spending $30M on a single, older pitcher (prospect) like Gonzalez. The double money you're paying in this market is still better invested than the totally unconstrained spending on the age 23+ guys from Cuba.

 

However, it is one of the few available avenues to inject talent into the system with no other cost but money.

 

If Gonzalez is actually ready to step in and pitch (I'm not sure he is), then I'm not really sure that he's a worse investment in the general sense.

 

You look at the lists of IFA classes each year, and 95% of this money might as well be piled up in a hotel room and burned. The failure rate for these prospects is huge.

[Guest]

The "smartness" involved, of course, involves paying $2 per dollar. You need to outbid the market to get a guy in the first place, so you're paying $1 mill for guys that other teams won't pay a million for. With the tax, you're paying $2 million for guys that nobody else will give a million for.

yep! But then again, it isn't my money.

 

Primarily, I'm looking at this in comparison to spending $30M on a single, older pitcher (prospect) like Gonzalez. The double money you're paying in this market is still better invested than the totally unconstrained spending on the age 23+ guys from Cuba.

 

However, it is one of the few available avenues to inject talent into the system with no other cost but money.

 

If Gonzalez is actually ready to step in and pitch (I'm not sure he is), then I'm not really sure that he's a worse investment in the general sense.

 

You look at the lists of IFA classes each year, and 95% of this money might as well be piled up in a hotel room and burned. The failure rate for these prospects is huge.

 

Say that number really is 95% in general. I wonder how much of it might as well be piled up in a hotel room and burned if you go by the quantity types and pull out the big bonus guys.

[Guest]

The "smartness" involved, of course, involves paying $2 per dollar. You need to outbid the market to get a guy in the first place, so you're paying $1 mill for guys that other teams won't pay a million for. With the tax, you're paying $2 million for guys that nobody else will give a million for.

yep! But then again, it isn't my money.

 

Primarily, I'm looking at this in comparison to spending $30M on a single, older pitcher (prospect) like Gonzalez. The double money you're paying in this market is still better invested than the totally unconstrained spending on the age 23+ guys from Cuba.

 

However, it is one of the few available avenues to inject talent into the system with no other cost but money.

 

If Gonzalez is actually ready to step in and pitch (I'm not sure he is), then I'm not really sure that he's a worse investment in the general sense.

 

You look at the lists of IFA classes each year, and 95% of this money might as well be piled up in a hotel room and burned. The failure rate for these prospects is huge.

 

Which is why Tim (and so many of us) is a fan of the quantity approach.

[Guest]

The "smartness" involved, of course, involves paying $2 per dollar. You need to outbid the market to get a guy in the first place, so you're paying $1 mill for guys that other teams won't pay a million for. With the tax, you're paying $2 million for guys that nobody else will give a million for.

yep! But then again, it isn't my money.

 

Primarily, I'm looking at this in comparison to spending $30M on a single, older pitcher (prospect) like Gonzalez. The double money you're paying in this market is still better invested than the totally unconstrained spending on the age 23+ guys from Cuba.

 

However, it is one of the few available avenues to inject talent into the system with no other cost but money.

 

If Gonzalez is actually ready to step in and pitch (I'm not sure he is), then I'm not really sure that he's a worse investment in the general sense.

 

You look at the lists of IFA classes each year, and 95% of this money might as well be piled up in a hotel room and burned. The failure rate for these prospects is huge.

 

 

Which is why Tim (and so many of us) is a fan of the quantity approach.

If we're throwing out percentages here, I'd think 99% of the 95% wasted money goes to the quantity approach. I'd rather them place a few high dollar bets with better odds than spread the money around on a bunch of low dollar bets with worse/terrible odds. It would be interesting to see the correlations between signing dollars and WAR or even ML service time.

[Guest]

If we're throwing out percentages here, I'd think 99% of the 95% wasted money goes to the quantity approach. I'd rather them place a few high dollar bets with better odds than spread the money around on a bunch of low dollar bets with worse/terrible odds. It would be interesting to see the correlations between signing dollars and WAR or even ML service time.

 

I would bet that more dollars are wasted on the big bonus guys than on the cheap "quantity" guys.

[Guest]

If we're throwing out percentages here, I'd think 99% of the 95% wasted money goes to the quantity approach. I'd rather them place a few high dollar bets with better odds than spread the money around on a bunch of low dollar bets with worse/terrible odds. It would be interesting to see the correlations between signing dollars and WAR or even ML service time.

I would bet that more dollars are wasted on the big bonus guys than on the cheap "quantity" guys.

I'm talking about hit rate. What's the hit rate for the the top 20% of the kids who got the most, the middle 60%, the lower 20%? Of course there will be wiffs, if it is like a lottery I'd like to spread my limited money on the best bets, if that can be determined and I don't know if it can.

-----------------

But I'd really like to see the Cubs dramatically improve their player development process so even the low odd kid's odds are increased.

[Guest]

If we're throwing out percentages here, I'd think 99% of the 95% wasted money goes to the quantity approach. I'd rather them place a few high dollar bets with better odds than spread the money around on a bunch of low dollar bets with worse/terrible odds. It would be interesting to see the correlations between signing dollars and WAR or even ML service time.

I would bet that more dollars are wasted on the big bonus guys than on the cheap "quantity" guys.

I'm talking about hit rate. What's the hit rate for the the top 20% of the kids who got the most, the middle 60%, the lower 20%? Of course there will be wiffs, if it is like a lottery I'd like to spread my limited money on the best bets, if that can be determined and I don't know if it can.

-----------------

But I'd really like to see the Cubs dramatically improve their player development process so even the low odd kid's odds are increased.

 

The hit rate might (I would hope it is) be higher on the big bonus guys, but given how much more money those guys get, I'm saying that loading up on cheap guys would probably yield more quality players/production per dollar spent.

[jersey cubs fan]

Well, if you spend huge on multiple guys one year, then spread it around to a hell of a lot more, then rinse and repeat, you can get the best (or worst) of both worlds. That is assuming you timed the market right.

[Guest]

Well, if you spend huge on multiple guys one year, then spread it around to a hell of a lot more, then rinse and repeat, you can get the best (or worst) of both worlds. That is assuming you timed the market right.

 

Yeah, I think I alluded to something like that a few pages back. And if it's anything like the draft, maybe focus on position guys for the big bonus years and focus on pitchers for the spread it around years.

[davell]

If the Cubs can get Tseng for 1.5(assuming Jimenez is 2.8), then acquire the max slot space they can, they'd be at the very upper end of the 10-15% penalty. Which is a 100% penalty on the money overage. Which would be under 700,000. They wouldn't be able to pay over 500,000 for a player next year either. Is that worth it? I'd be completely fine with spreading the money around next year, or even trading it away. That said, if you're already going this far, go all the way, and sign a couple more big bonus guys. This IFA class could be extremely memorable and I hope we're in "sign them all" mode.

[TruffleShuffle]

The hit rate might (I would hope it is) be higher on the big bonus guys, but given how much more money those guys get, I'm saying that loading up on cheap guys would probably yield more quality players/production per dollar spent.

 

i would agree with this, especially considering that these are 16 year olds and the bust rate is going to be high. it wouldn't surprise me, though, if it's really hard to find a guy who gives superstar production (something the cubs could desperately use) in signing the $50k, $100k guys. guys like felix hernandez and miguel cabrera may just have certain physical attributes or skills (i.e., hand-eye coordination) that are already apparent at age 16. so maybe to find a superstar you may need to look at a heavier investment, but the find good or solid players the quantity approach is the way to go.

 

i think the plan tim mentioned earlier is a good one, where you go over in odd years (but sign a large number of big-dollar guys) and then just sign a lot of the $50k to $250k guys in even years.

[Guest]

I'm not sure about how to find that sort of information in aggregate, but FWIW Castro signed for 45k.

[Guest]

I'm not sure about how to find that sort of information in aggregate, but FWIW Castro signed for 45k.

 

Pedro and Vlad signed for very small bonuses, though things were a lot different in the 1990s compared to today.