Rumor: Twins to spend over their Int. bonus limit in 2015-16?

[kab21]

The sarcastic in me thinks even if this FO regime "goes through the roof" for international players, they will keep them in the minors for 6-7 years and block them with aging free agents of diminishing skills both in the majors and AAA.  Because this is what they do.  So, unless they change mindset, about playing young players and not signing mediocre old players, they should not go all out for international free agents.

 

This is so old and tired.  Berrios was one of the youngest pitchers in his league.  Stewart and Thorpe among the youngest pitchers in low A.  Sano was one of the youngest AA players.  Buxton was one of the youngest players in his league.  The Twins have promoted talented prospects.  the problem is that they simply didn't have many talented prospects to promote for a number of years.  The reason for that was that they ignored the int'l market and had some clunker drafts for several years.  This is precisely the reason why they should go all in for the international free agents.  They need a steady stream of talented prospects instead of the **** they used to have.

[Otwins]

Hopefully the days of top 5 draft picks are over so another means to acquire top talent is an excellent idea. I am in the camp that they will go over the limit but with multiple signings not for 1 guy.

[beckmt]

Not all Cubans are winners, but most of the last round of position players have been.  Think the Twins should go for it, but then what do you do with Sano(if outfield it is almost certain that Arcia would have to be traded if Vargas succeeds at DH. Mauer will be here until 2018 so that is another issue as 1B is not an option.  You can never have enough talent and if you have excess you can make good trades to keep the pipeline or weak spots fixed. 

[jay]

Right now about 1 WAR costs about $6 million.

That's on the MLB free agent market with proven MLB players. The risk factors are significantly higher for a 19 year old int'l prospect. You'd be promising no less than $100M for 6 years of MLB control. The few free agents that get that kind of money are established 3+ WAR players.

 

I have no idea how to accurately price that additional risk, but you'd need to believe in a high likelihood of more than 3 WAR a year to justify it... which is something few top prospects materialize to reality.

[nytwinsfan]

That's on the MLB free agent market with proven MLB players. The risk factors are significantly higher for a 19 year old int'l prospect. You'd be promising no less than $100M for 6 years of MLB control. The few free agents that get that kind of money are established 3+ WAR players.

 

I have no idea how to accurately price that additional risk, but you'd need to believe in a high likelihood of more than 3 WAR a year to justify it... which is something few top prospects materialize to reality.

Yeah, there is some truth to that, but (1) there is also some downside risk for free agents, especially when they are above 30 (and certainly when 39), that there will be serious decline.  True, there might be little risk of 0 WAR like there is for Moncada, although even that is possible with injuries, especially for pitchers. And (2) there is also way more upside for Moncada, i.e., by all accounts he has a shot (say 10-20%) of being a consistent 5 WAR per season player. Very few free agents, and even fewer that could be gotten for $100 - 120M for 6 years, have that kind of upside. So I agree he is riskier, but both on the upside and the downside of the equation.

[jay]

Yeah, there is some truth to that, but (1) there is also some downside risk for free agents, especially when they are above 30 (and certainly when 39), that there will be serious decline. True, there might be little risk of 0 WAR like there is for Moncada, although even that is possible with injuries, especially for pitchers. And (2) there is also way more upside for Moncada, i.e., by all accounts he has a shot (say 10-20%) of being a consistent 5 WAR per season player. Very few free agents, and even fewer that could be gotten for $100 - 120M for 6 years, have that kind of upside. So I agree he is riskier, but both on the upside and the downside of the equation.

The downside risk and decline for free agents is already priced into that $6M/WAR figure.

 

With how much risk there is here, I think I'd need to see his odds of being a 5 WAR guy (top 25 players in MLB) at closer to 50-50 to think $100M or $120M wasn't bat **** crazy. There's just not a lot of room for decent $/WAR production at $100-120M.

[kab21]

To somewhat accurately value Moncada we need to know just how good of a prospect he is.  That's going to be difficult since he has only played Cuban ball and he will have not played any ball in 1+ years.  I get the feeling that he would easily be a top 10 prospect in baseball if he were eligible.  I would pay 50M for a Byron Buxton level prospect (current version and not draft version).  80M?  100M?

 

Is Moncada worth the money AND not being able to sign several of Minier, Diaz, Thorpe and better types?  I expect that he will sign before the next signing period so that the Twins would be shut out of the following the next two signing periods.

 

Does anyone have a source that says they couldn't sign him to a multiyear contract covering his arb years?  I know that the 16 yr old int'l FA's always get upfront bonuses but why couldn't he be signed like Puig, Tomas or Cespedes?  The difference is that he will be subject to a luxury tax while they weren't but I don't recall there actually being a rule that they couldn't be offered multiyear contracts.

[Major League Ready]

Moncada is a better bet because he is a little older than many of the previous top prospects.  The link below is for the top 20 all-time international bonuses.  Most of the players who are now old enough to evaluate in terms MLB performance or those who are now old enough for a good evaluation have flamed out completely or are not looking like the prospect that landed a huge signing bonus.

 

Moncada might just be the guy that makes the big risk worth while but that is not the way I would suggest running a business or building a team.   Most fans are enthralled by signing the biggest name international prospects but most of them are signed at 16 which just does not promote a high degree of accuracy in terms of predicting ML talent.   History would suggest it would be more productive to sign 30 players @100K each as opposed to one guy for $3M.

 

www.baseballamerica.com/international/top-20-all-time-international-bonuses-11342/

[Mike Sixel]

Ya, but the Twins don't sign 30 guys either. They have largely passed on the top guys, and dipped to tenth or so......they were last aggressive on the internatioan market under a different GM.

[Major League Ready]

You are right, Mike.  I was really just making a point in concept in terms of what is the most productive invest strategy for young international players.  It would not be hard to model the productivity of international prospects in correlation with signing bonus.  The actual numbers have inflated substantially but you could normalize the numbers and determine what level of prospects offer the best ROI.

 

I think we all hope to see a very aggressive approach to international prospects.  However, I think there are widely varying opinions on how that aggressiveness should be applied.

[kab21]

Moncada is a better bet because he is a little older than many of the previous top prospects.  The link below is for the top 20 all-time international bonuses.  Most of the players who are now old enough to evaluate in terms MLB performance or those who are now old enough for a good evaluation have flamed out completely or are not looking like the prospect that landed a huge signing bonus.

 

Moncada might just be the guy that makes the big risk worth while but that is not the way I would suggest running a business or building a team.   Most fans are enthralled by signing the biggest name international prospects but most of them are signed at 16 which just does not promote a high degree of accuracy in terms of predicting ML talent.   History would suggest it would be more productive to sign 30 players @100K each as opposed to one guy for $3M.

 

www.baseballamerica.com/international/top-20-all-time-international-bonuses-11342/

this really isn't relevant to Moncada.  He's already played 2 years of pro ball at the AA-ish level compared to 15/16 yr olds that are playing in academies.  Moncada would be more comparable to Cespedes, Puig and Soler (top prospect in baseball).  He just happens to be 21 and needs to be subject to the same rules as 16 yr olds.

 

If the scouts think he is immediately a top 10 prospect then I'm all for spending the rumored 80-100M to add him to two other top 10 prospects and several other top 100 prospects.  I don't hold out any hope for it happening though.

[old nurse]

 Very rare does a shortstop come up as a 5 WAR player, very few can maintain it. If Moncada had a career 25 war for his first 6 years, it would put him near the top of the post steroid era shortstops.  At 6 mil/war, 80 million signing costs (high estimates), that would leave 70 million for salary. That might be doable.  and not think you have blown through money. If he is Aybar rather than Tulo good you would  not have such a good deal

[kab21]

If he is Aybar (a 3+ WAR player) then you are at least breaking even.  The Twins just paid 50M (each) for two 2-3 WAR pitchers.  Typically any FA can be considered a poor investment since they are in the decline phase of their career.  You have to spend the money somewhere and picking a guy that has big upside is a better bet (with more risk) than a declining vet.

 

The key to the Twins future success is maximizing the amount of talent coming up at one time (with Buxton and Sano).  He would be coming up at the same time and would give the Twins one more potentially scary bat in the lineup.

[Mike Sixel]

You are right, Mike.  I was really just making a point in concept in terms of what is the most productive invest strategy for young international players.  It would not be hard to model the productivity of international prospects in correlation with signing bonus.  The actual numbers have inflated substantially but you could normalize the numbers and determine what level of prospects offer the best ROI.

 

I think we all hope to see a very aggressive approach to international prospects.  However, I think there are widely varying opinions on how that aggressiveness should be applied.

 

Right....I'd be ok with the masses strategy (as long as at least one was top 5-7).

[jay]

(as long as at least one was top 5-7)

Why is that the magical threshold?

[nicksaviking]

Why is that the magical threshold?

 

Probably because that's where the Twins international bonus pool lines up most years.  The system is ineffecutal in it's current state, but all things being equal (which was the intent of the current system) the Twins should be getting a top 4-7 international prospect each year due to their poor record.

[jay]

Probably because that's where the Twins international bonus pool lines up most years. The system is ineffecutal in it's current state, but all things being equal (which was the intent of the current system) the Twins should be getting a top 4-7 international prospect each year due to their poor record.

While that's a logical answer based on the current system, it's not how I read the initial response.

 

I think having a number of teams go substantially beyond their limit has thrown off the tiers in the pool, making it harder for teams to find a 16 year old that fits in each intended slot. The other side of that is to say who cares, you should spend all of that pool no matter what.

[nicksaviking]

While that's a logical answer based on the current system, it's not how I read the initial response.

 

I think having a number of teams go substantially beyond their limit has thrown off the tiers in the pool, making it harder for teams to find a 16 year old that fits in each intended slot. The other side of that is to say who cares, you should spend all of that pool no matter what.

 

Which then brings up the quality vs quantity debate.  Many of us would prefer quality with the understanding that evaluating these guys isn't an exact science.

[nytwinsfan]

 Very rare does a shortstop come up as a 5 WAR player, very few can maintain it. If Moncada had a career 25 war for his first 6 years, it would put him near the top of the post steroid era shortstops.  At 6 mil/war, 80 million signing costs (high estimates), that would leave 70 million for salary. That might be doable.  and not think you have blown through money. If he is Aybar rather than Tulo good you would  not have such a good deal

By all accounts he is more likely to end up at 3rd base, or maybe 2nd base.

 

If he is Aybar (a 3+ WAR player) then you are at least breaking even.  The Twins just paid 50M (each) for two 2-3 WAR pitchers.  Typically any FA can be considered a poor investment since they are in the decline phase of their career.  You have to spend the money somewhere and picking a guy that has big upside is a better bet (with more risk) than a declining vet.

 

The key to the Twins future success is maximizing the amount of talent coming up at one time (with Buxton and Sano).  He would be coming up at the same time and would give the Twins one more potentially scary bat in the lineup.

This.

[Secondary User]

Which then brings up the quality vs quantity debate.  Many of us would prefer quality with the understanding that evaluating these guys isn't an exact science.

 

If evaluating them isn't an exact science, wouldn't you be better off with a quantity based argument?

[jay]

http://mweb.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24910042/pirates-pull-surprise-win-bidding-for-power-hitting-korean-ss-kang

 

$5M bid, 3-4 year deal @ $5M per.

 

I'd take four of those to one Moncada.

[kab21]

If evaluating them isn't an exact science, wouldn't you be better off with a quantity based argument?

 

That's true if you are talking about random 16 yr olds.  Moncada isn't a random 16 yr old.  Sano wasn't even a random 16 yr old.  there are only so many Sano types (like one every five+ years) to go after.  Moncada is head and shoulders above the typical 16 yr old and likely would only need a year in the minors vs 5 for a typical int'l signee.  That's a pretty important reason since the Twins have other elite prospects currently coming up. 

 

In addition to this the Twins are going to have to blow through their cap this year just to keep up with the Jones's.  We are going to see some very inflated numbers for 16 yr olds due everybody saying that they are going to spend like drunker sailors.  There is a chance that the Twins don't actually end up with a better signing class than recent years even if they blow through the cap.

 

I'm not sure what has led the other teams to be apprehensive about Kang.  It seems that he should have been worth more.

[diehardtwinsfan]

FWIW, I don't think Moncada will cost 80-100... I think it will be closer to 50 after tax.

[TRex]

I'm not sure what has led the other teams to be apprehensive about Kang.  It seems that he should have been worth more.if it is a 3 yr. contract,

What makes me apprehensive is that scouts think he is unlikely to stick at SS. While he seems to have the arm for 3rd,  you could spend $20M for 3 years, which is more than Plouffe would cost. They are similar in age, and we know Plouffe's power plays in the MLB.

[Jeremy Nygaard]

Just to add unnecessary fuel to the Moncada fire...

 

Someone down semi-involved with the area that Moncada is working out ended an email to me with "I'm sure we'll talk soon." 

 

Now, you can take that as "we'll talk soon" or "I'm sure we'll talk because you'll want to talk about the billion we're about to blow on Moncada." 

 

Interpret that as you wish.

[nytwinsfan]

"Someone down semi-involved with the area that Moncada is working out" . . . from the Twins organization?

 

Just to add unnecessary fuel to the Moncada fire...

 

Someone down semi-involved with the area that Moncada is working out ended an email to me with "I'm sure we'll talk soon." 

 

Now, you can take that as "we'll talk soon" or "I'm sure we'll talk because you'll want to talk about the billion we're about to blow on Moncada." 

 

Interpret that as you wish.

[Jeremy Nygaard]

"Someone down semi-involved with the area that Moncada is working out" . . . from the Twins organization?

 

It wouldn't mean anything if he were from a different organization, would it?  (Yes, the Twins organization.)

[nytwinsfan]

It wouldn't mean anything if he were from a different organization, would it?  (Yes, the Twins organization.)

Thanks Jeremy.  I guess I can't imagine the Twins competing with New York, LA, SF and the like unless they are pretty sure Sano cannot stay at 3rd Base. If you are going to spend that kind of money, wouldn't you want to make sure you have a real positional need that Moncada can fill? I know Moncada could also be a 2nd baseman or SS, but the Twins seem to have a lot of options for those positions going forward. Obviously, Moncada is so good a prospect that the Twins might make an offer, even without a positional need, but you would think if the Twins were not already overmatched by the money available to big market teams, the fact that some of them have glaring holes at 3rd base or 2nd base (e.g., the Angels, Yankees, or the Giants) would make them even more likely to spend big on Moncada, relative to the Twins. Would love to be proven wrong though.  After all, I didn't think that Hughes extension was going to happen either.  And even if the Twins just spend $25 million ($40 m with taxes) on 12 different high-upside international teenagers in 2015-16, that would be awesome too.

[bird]

Which then brings up the quality vs quantity debate.  Many of us would prefer quality with the understanding that evaluating these guys isn't an exact science.

The assumption being consistently made is that the Twins have been passing on quality, Sano excepted. This is based on Ben Badler's and maybe some other guy's rankings of a bunch of 16 year-olds, sight unseen for the most part. Teams, including the Twins, have scouts watching these same guys, and they probably disagree with Badler's assessments more often than not. That said, the Twins have apparently had similar high regard for a number of guys also rated quite highly by Badler, and have signed one or more of these top 10-25 types each and every year for a number of years. This group includes Sano of course, and also Minier, Silva, Diaz et al. Additionally, the Twins have signed a number of players that weren't even on the radar of some of the raters like Badler, and some are top 150-type prospects in baseball, such as Thorpe, Kepler, and Hu.

 

So, to declare that being one of Badler's top 7 16-year-old prospects is an indicator of a quality signing while other signings suggest otherwise is bad thinking. Let's instead make a list of other international signings completing their rookie season at the same time as our guys, and ask how many of those are superior to, say Arcia in 2013 or Vargas and Santana in 2014. With 30 teams out there competing for international talent, I'd say if the Twins have a guy, each year, from the international market that is one of the best half-dozen or so entering the league that year, perhaps they're doing pretty well.

 

How many foreign players who entered the league with Arcia in 2013 would you trade for him even-up? Not many. And how many of Badler's Top 10 international prospects from 2010 are ranked now as Top 100 prospects? Not many. BTW, did Badler have Arcia ranked at all? How about Polanco?

[diehardtwinsfan]

Thanks Jeremy.  I guess I can't imagine the Twins competing with New York, LA, SF and the like unless they are pretty sure Sano cannot stay at 3rd Base. If you are going to spend that kind of money, wouldn't you want to make sure you have a real positional need that Moncada can fill? I know Moncada could also be a 2nd baseman or SS, but the Twins seem to have a lot of options for those positions going forward. Obviously, Moncada is so good a prospect that the Twins might make an offer, even without a positional need, but you would think if the Twins were not already overmatched by the money available to big market teams, the fact that some of them have glaring holes at 3rd base or 2nd base (e.g., the Angels, Yankees, or the Giants) would make them even more likely to spend big on Moncada, relative to the Twins. Would love to be proven wrong though.  After all, I didn't think that Hughes extension was going to happen either.  And even if the Twins just spend $25 million ($40 m with taxes) on 12 different high-upside international teenagers in 2015-16, that would be awesome too.

 

I wouldn't look at it this way.  The team can make room for Sano's bat... and if Moncada is as good as advertised, they'll make room for that bat too. For what it's worth though, Moncada is still a SS (though it's expected he'll end up at 3rd).  Even though there are decent 2B and SS prospects, I'm not sure any of them are at his level in terms of potential. He's also going to need some minor league seasoning too, so it would give the team time to figure it out...  If neither can move off of 3rd, they can trade Vargas and DH one of them.  If for some reason that won't work, someone would pay a pretty penny in prospects to get one of them.