January 15, 2024 International Signing Period

[Austinfan]

Oritz, Encarnacion and Pujols were overpays based on early maturity leading to plus plus batting practice/16 year old pitchers power - that didn't translate against real pitchers.

[phillychuck]

It's important not to over-generalize. Not every physically mature 16-year-old Latino fails to develop. (Just the ones signed by the Phillies...) The reason our guys didn't develop is probably due in part to scouting, determining make-up (which is also scouting), and a bad system for teaching hitting. We should not STOP signing physically mature Latin American players just because we've struck out too many time in that arena; we just need to change how we evaluate them. All of those signings were very highly rated players in BA and elsewhere who would have been signed for about the same money by another team. That seems to shift a lot of blame to development.

Fish is right, it's a new day. It's important not to repeat mistakes, however it's just as important to understand which players might succeed in the "mature-16-year-old" demographic.

[allentown]

Hopefully, this will be a brighter new day, We have had many new days declared on this forum and they have yet to materialize.

[andyb]

Oritz, Encarnacion and Pujols were overpays based on early maturity leading to plus plus batting practice/16 year old pitchers power - that didn't translate against real pitchers.

I think only Encarnacion fits that description. Ortiz had power and was at least average defensively with a legit RF arm. Pujols was very good defensively with an arm that had them toying with him pitching. They could not hit. Encarnacion had little defensive value by the time he was 19 or 20, though he was only a little over a million so he did have a path as a 1B if he could actually hit. But he couldn't. Ortiz hit some, but not enough. The problem with Ortiz was overpaying because they thought he was a much better hitter than he ended up to be and it is really tough to project hitting ability. Overpaying was the mistake, not really anything about his physical maturity.

Agree its a new day. This is the place to evaluate who we just signed and the strategy behind that.

[zambonir]

I reckon it's not quite a new day yet. On the development side, maybe. But even putting aside how long the scouting window is in Latin America this class is still from Sal's regime. Chung has only been on the job for six weeks (and Sal's still there, of course).

Hopefully things improved over the past two years post-Minniti though, and we know they are also coordinating with Mattingly more in both domestic and international scouting.

[fish]

David Freitas 6’4” VZ outfielder signed out of the CBC Elite program that competes in Perfect Game…which I suppose means something about his ability.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/4rM2KWk6hkdNB84a/?mibextid=WC7FNe

[Austinfan]

The point about physical maturity is about overpaying, if a young player is mature at 16-17, he's either probably close to maxed out or possibly steroids/growth hormone. So you should discount their current performance both b/c of less upside and b/c you are watching them against their peers, which means you're not going to see them hit against good breaking stuff or 95 MPH FBs very often, and being strong at a young age will let them look good against mediocre stuff.

[andyb]

It's just not a great point. By definition every 16-year-old prospect is a projection of some sort. The prospects you mentioned failed because they could not hit, something that has very little to do with physical maturity. Vlad Guerrero Jr. was just as physically mature but he could hit.

Our overpays are much more due to bad scouting and bad negotiations. I thought Luis Garcia was an overpay. I think Bergolla now is an overpay. That is because they did not have great tools for the price, not any sense of misguided maturity projections. You need to just move on from this point. It is about scouting and projection but there are a whole lot of different types of players that become good major leaguers. Again, this forum is to discuss our prospects, not some esoteric philosophy that may or may not be correct.

Back to the subject. Our top prospect this year (Arias) is very like Ortiz in terms of projection but he cost 70% less (more when inflation adjusted). So it is likely a better value. This allowed us 3 more signings likely for over $500K (Mujica, Familia, Navas). We did not get to do that last year when we spent most of it on Caba (who looks pretty good so far but was so expensive he could easily end up in the overpay category).

[allentown]

Yes, every 16-year old is a projection. Since the big $ guys commit at 14 or 15, it is an even more difficult projection. Unfortunately, our scouts seem below average is making accurate or even partially-accurate projections. It doesn't help if you get conned by a guy like Yhoswar and project based upon a phony yardstick which assumes he's a year younger than he is. When confronted with this error on age and the certainty of a year's suspension for misrepresenting himself, the Phillies commented that, regardless of actual age, they liked what they saw in him. This is either an outright lie or the refusal of their scouting system to discount performance based upon age when projecting the kid's future MLB potential.

Yes, are LA staff were horrible negotiators. In what world do you stick to your very large bonus offer to a guy who lied about his age and faces a suspension if you sign him? Certainly not the same world in which another team gets around the problem of projecting a 14- or 15- year old's future by committing to more bonuses than they can pay, taking a second look when the kids are 16 and the international signing period rolls around, and then simply reneging on the offers to the ones who haven't developed as well over the ~1 year since they locked them up. No penalty from the Commish on that one, btw.

I'm glas you agree that Bergolia was also an overpay, along with Ortiz. That suggests that same-old, same-old was still in place quite recently.

I agree that pitchers are harder to project at this age, but since the current common wisdom across MLB is to focus upon position players as a result, and since we've done so poorly with the position players, I think this may well be an inefficiency that the Phillies should take advantage of. They could have their pick of the 16-year old LA pitchers for bonuses far smaller than the bonuses we've been giving to our top position player picks. Probably a dozen serious pitching prospects, the majority of which won't develop satisfactorily, in place of the $4 million to Ortiz. Likely at least a handful for the bonus we gave Bergolia. We have a better record of developing LA pitching prospects, for cheap, than we do with costly position players. It's worth a try. The team literally has nothing to lose.

[andyb]

Cracking the code of developing Latin American pitching may be the secret to the next dynasty or two in baseball. If a team can consistently spend less than 20% of their pool and come up with several pitching prospects a year (worthy of our top 10 - something we really have not done since Sixto or Seranthony - Ranger was a little more luck than projection) then they will be very good. Houston probably is the best among current franchises at doing this.

[zambonir]

I've always assumed our LA scouts just didn't have the connections (or perhaps, they might claim, the willingness to pay under the table). Kind of the same way some teams just never have a shot at a certain agent's clients, Sal wasn't tight with the right operators. And, conversely, he was probably tight with someone connected to Garcia and probably felt they were going to burn a relationship or even their status in the community overall if they backed down from their commitment. But we just don't know what really happened there - whose fault it was, how much deception there was etc.

The focus on Venezuela also seemed like a de facto admission they couldn't play in the DR.

All of this traces back to the franchise's historic frugality and lack of belief in prospects and international to begin with, of course. That part has certainly changed but the proof is still in the pudding.

[Matt_Winkelman]

I am not going to get in the weeds on this, and you can argue DSL stats. The Phillies two teams this year were 1st and 17th in ERA with DSL Phillies blowing away the league in ERA and leading in K/BB (11th in K/9, 3rd in BB/9). That does not include their second biggest signing of last period, Pan who was A-ball right off the start.

But towards sort of a larger point, there is a real dearth of these pitchers generally. Baseball Prospectus put out their top 101 prospects today. There are zero Latin American pitchers on the list. By my count there are 20 position player prospects from Latin America.

[andyb]

there is a real dearth of these pitchers generally. Baseball Prospectus put out their top 101 prospects today. There are zero Latin American pitchers on the list. By my count there are 20 position player prospects from Latin America.

This was kind of my point. Nobody is developing much these days. I imagine pitchers used to make up a much larger share of international pool dollars. Maybe not 50% but probably close to 40%. And we used to develop more Latin American pitching. The problem was that this pitching developed inefficiently. More $$ per WAR long term. So the money was better spent on position players.

U.S. Colleges always represented a better bang for the buck in terms of pitching. So MLB has stopped spending money on Latin American pitching these days and appears to be developing less of it. Hence the ineffficiency.

I have no idea if the current crop in the DSL is that good compared to the rest of MLB. We appear to be a bit older on average and we don't have a huge number of hard throwers. Hopefully we have figured something out with older signees with more rounded stuff rather than just velocity. There is just not much evidence of this yet. As I said, whoever cracks the code on this could heap the rewards.

[fish]

I'm glas you agree that Bergolia was also an overpay, along with Ortiz.

I'm really interested to see what Bergolla becomes. If you wanted a Luis Arraez starting block, you'd start with Bergolla, but the projection question remains the same. Even for Arraez, because as fun as the hitting ability is, the run production is lacking.

I find myself asking the same question about the Braves giving Jose Perdomo 5 million- I don't see the physical projection to be a hitting star for a guy who seems to be "just good enough" to play shortstop.

[Matt_Winkelman]

They definitely have some interesting arms, but I will admit to not having the full DSL memorized.

To your college vs international comparison, you are talking a 4 to 5 year age gap and you are taking on all of the risk. Not just in the development risk because of the just inherent projection risk of teenagers, but also of injuries. You also are taking on roster risk. If you sign a guy today he will be Rule 5 eligible after his age 20 or 21 season, and FA eligible after age 22 or 23. If you add him to your 40 man roster he is out of options by age 23 or 24, or if you don't add immediately that is 24 to 26. That is a lot of risk and pressure to get it right, and you are talking about kids who really should not be throwing that many breaking balls yet. Then you have the limits on roster sizes and number of teams and that decreases just how much playing time you have. What you are asking is not to fill an inefficiency but to fully crack the code of pitching development.

[andyb]

To be clear, I don't want Bergolla to be an overpay. He just looks like an average SS defensively at best with no power. Probably a backup middle infielder with a high OBP at this point. Useful but not what one would expect for $2 million. I hope he is more of course. The Luis Arraez path is just so hard and unique it is hard to predict he will be successful there.

[Austinfan]

Most of the successful pitchers Phillies have signed out of LA have been low bonus guys, wonder if that's a general rule - pitchers that young are going to fail at higher rates, even the top rated ones, so it makes sense that the number signed with upside is far more important than signing a few who look good at 16. A lot of the successful ones seem to make a big velo jump as they fill out from 17-21. The majority probably fail to get a big velo jump or can't develop command or secondary pitches, but you can sign 10-15 pitchers to small bonuses each year and only have to hit on one or two.

[andyb]

I pulled up the 2016 BA top 100 and there were 10 Latin American free agent pitchers on that list. It really does seem to be a huge question as to why there are hardly any of these prospects now. MLB budget constraints? Harder to develop them in the Dominican and only 165 domestic roster slots now.

[bkox]

I pulled up the 2016 BA top 100 and there were 10 Latin American free agent pitchers on that list.

How many of them made it to the MLB? What was the success rate?

[Matt_Winkelman]

I think it is a number of factors, but the roster constraints are definitely one of them. Ranger Suarez spent 3 years in the VSL and then two years in short season before he eventually had his stuff catch up. That spot on a domestic roster is really fringe. It also is decreasing inflow of players. Right now the Phillies are at 30-35 signings a year out of Latin America total. In 17-18 they signed 72 players and 56 the year before it.
The hard caps on Latin American spending have also forced the evaluation and signing agreements even earlier. Teams are trying to agree with the top guys when they 14 or 15, and that is way too young for everyone (the hitter side big $ prospects have been failing at a huge rate too) and especially too young for pitchers. That is generally going to drive families, kids, and buscones towards putting every athlete in the field and not on the mound, because unless the arm talent is high there isn't money there.
Pitching injuries just continue to rise and teams have gotten good at maximizing arms for now and burning them out. A young pitcher is a really precious resource that must be developed carefully and slowly because the investment of time and money is large, so they are going to only spend on the premium and the rest will be survival of the fittest. More and more teams think they are the Rays or the Dodgers who can just cobble together a bunch of fungible arms rather than create durable starters.
The value of pitching prospects consequently continues to drop. High school arms have been falling down the draft, which is why the Phillies got Abel and Painter where they did, and while good picks, it isn't going perfectly with them. Teams just do not value investing resources in pitching.

I should really say on all of this that it isn't what I want or think should happen. This is my read on the reality of what is going on.