Looks like Ruiz should only be $250K in that top post but then there is some other discrepancy between your list and Matt's that is not adding up perfectly. Imagine there are a few more bonuses out there in the more than $10K but less than $100K range also so I would not expect us to have quite as much available as we currently know. I suspect that the $20K bonus is a real thing to lower tier prospects as an inducement to sign with one organization versus another given multiple choices.
Yep, the Ruiz amount is wrong; PEBKAC. I'll fix it. I'll also track down Matt's list and do a comparison - going back to sources to the extent that I can at this point. May take a while...
Update: That didn't take as long as I thought it might, because Matt's table5 and mine show the same bonus amounts for players. We show a $20k difference in available pool; that's because my table excludes the two reported $10k bonuses from the calculated total (because my understanding of the rules is that bonuses of $10k or less do not count against the pool).
Yep, lazy coding on my part that is rarely relevant because we never get enough bonus numbers for it to matter. I can't remember where I saw it, but I believe I saw the Phillies are in the 5 figures of dollars available, which if you assume that some of the other 16-17 year olds are in the mid 5 figures that would track with ~$370,000 remaining and missing bonuses for about have the class.
This goes to our on/off discussion about Latin American pitching (with prominent Ranger Suarez mentions). A hidden factor is that the trainers are pushing players to be position players rather than pitchers to get a higher bonus. This is a natural reaction to MLB's risk aversion, but is making the problem worse.
That is not the point though. The point is that baseball's perverse set of incentives is hurting the development of Latin American pitchers. The question is really how to develop more Latin American pitching. Not to save money. The agents are pushing the players into those positions to get better bonuses. Some of those players should be pitching when they are 16 as it is very often too late to convert them years later when they lose development time compared to U.S. pitchers.
They're 17 years old when they hit the DSL, it's probably better for them that they're not pitching and overdoing it trying to get signed - better they play a position, then be converted where a ML team can work with them from ground zero. If you can't teach a kid how to pitch from age 17-21, he's probably had no chance of making it in any case.
Wasn't Sanchez a position player when he was signed?
Hate to break it to you, but teams are not looking to sign shortstops and catchers to convert them to pitcher. They do that as the last resort if they can't hit. And if they convert them at age 17 it is rare.
Once again the point is that Latin American pitching is an untapped resource. Kids are not learning skills that would let them be starting pitchers because they are pushed to other positions by the economics of the game. If one could convince some of the good athletes to pitch at age 17 they might actually produce more pitchers. This is related to the game giving too much reward to velocity. They need to change the incentives in the game (deaden the ball, move the mound back a bit) to make velocity less important. If they don't, we are going to run out of pitchers at some point when they all blow their arms out (and we are not paying enough to replace them).
The Phillies starting rotation has one of the lowest average velocity and I think the lowest ERA in the majors this year. I suspect some teams will look at that and go hmmm maybe we overrate the value of velocity for starting pitchers. I think even the Phillies may change their approach given struggles of high velocity prospects (McGarry, etc.).
Bullpen is different, b/c you only need one solid secondary pitch for one inning and pitch counts don't matter as much (i.e. a RP throwing 20 pitches isn't the same problem as a SP throwing that on a regular basis and hitting 100 after 5 innings).
This feels a little bit like a stalking horse for a draft though no? Like, the demand and incentives come from MLB, but the "developing" is still so out of your hands.
I'm sure I've heard it before but what also jumped out at me from that article was the old maxim that you don't get off the DR by walking.
A draft could be part of it, but other things are more important. More money in Latin America in general for instance. Why is only $10,000 exempt from the signing pool in Latin America where that number is $150,000 in the draft? Why have the international pools increased more slowly than the draft pools?
I'd push the international signing age back a year or at least 6 months. Then also think about ways to make velocity a little less important in general in the game. An international draft might help a bit too, but it is like the 4th or 5th more important thing they can do. Pushing the signing age back and providing some more youth resources would help more.
Cuban RHP Fernando Ramos (21) officially signs with the Philadelphia Phillies.
β Francys Romero ( @francysromeroFR ) June 16, 2024
He is the 20th Cuban-born player to sign in the current international period.
FB: 94-95 mph and also cutter, splitter, curveball in his staff. pic.twitter.com/h1Y4GH4QSg11
That's a Moneyball opportunity, scout all the position players with live arms, and those who are already throwing 90+, catchers, SS, RF types, who struggle to hit could be great bargains to pick up for cheap. Convert to pitchers at 17 and give them 3 seasons in the DSL to make the transition under the tutelage of a real pitching coach.
It is not really Moneyball. Every team at this point is trying to sign whomever they can fit on a roster for $10,000 or less if they are tapped out in their pool. It is not really this grand strategy you point too when every team is filling out their roster the same way. Note the 25 runs we gave up in complex ball today. Our Latin American pitchers are just not that good comparatively.