July 2, 2017 International Signing Period

andyb 2017-12-10 17:19:18 UTC #644

There are many reasons why teams don't get prospects. We don't need explanations of those reasons. I just evaluate results. And on international spending in 2016 and the way it looks like 2017 will end up we will have spent less than 70% of what we were allowed to spend unless we traded for slots (2016) or allocations (2017). In 2016 we traded for nothing and could have traded for 50% of our original and sizable $5.6 million pool. So at best we spent 67% of what we could have.

This year we can trade for 75% of our original pool. We have traded for about $1 million of the $3.6 million we were allowed to. So if we spend $5.75 million out of potential spending of $8.3 million we will have spent 69% of what we could have.

Excuses are simply excuses. Saying "Sal got who he wanted" is a lousy excuse. It looks like both 2016 and 2017 are passing with the Phillies spending 70% of what they could. It is not about the spending. It is about the talent that they are not adding. Talent that can become players like Chris Archer or Manny Machado in massive 4-prospects for a young veteran trade. It is an opportunity missed even if one can say that they like the players who the Phillies signed (which I generally do). Excuses are excuses. They don't excuse poor execution and planning though.

zambonir 2017-12-10 18:07:06 UTC #645

While the Braves thing changes the situation, I guess I still don't understand how there can be an unlimited number of Latin American players out there that are worth signing in any given year (and also automatically better than anyone you'd trade away for allocation).

But if there are, they still have seven months to find more of them no?

Austinfan 2017-12-10 18:17:52 UTC #646

There's a limited supply of LA prospects that garner real money, bonuses fall to $1M or less by the 30th or so ranked prospect.
Even if only 20 or so teams are serious players, it's hard to nail down more than 3-4 of the top 50 (because you can't overspend like previous years).
Since you have to negotiate these deals often a year ahead, you don't want to overcommit all your funds up front.
It becomes a balance, the guys you have a shot at, the ones you want to commit money to early, the ones you want to wait and see.

And allocations are hard to obtain early, because the prospects offered haven't been good enough for teams to forfeit the option value of those allocations.
And allocations available later are harder to spend, because most of the expensive prospects have been locked up.
How many teams actually spent up to their potential allocation limit (that is, traded for the max available allocations, excluding the Angels, of course)?

The fact that they've traded for allocations the last couple years and used much of the money they traded for suggests they want to spend more.

andyb 2017-12-10 19:26:39 UTC #647

There is not an unlimited supply. But there is enough of a supply. In 2016 we chose not to bid on any of the extra Cuban prospects. This year other teams have traded for more allocations than the Phillies have. Clearly they are not all dumb. They are weighing the price of trading for allocations and have judged that price to be lower than what they can sign. The price of these trades has been modest so far. Yes a few prospects have changed hands but they often have been guys like Tocci where 40-man protection issues are in play. Not all but most. The Phillies traded for $1 million in allocations for players of near zero value. We know this.

So the Phillies are been less aggressive than they could be for whatever reason. Or other teams are smarter than they are at locking up the most talent for their allocations.

Just explaining spending less than 70% of what is possible because Sal and Klentak must be correct is not a real explanation. It is an excuse. 2016 was worse. They still have some time left in 2017 but the Braves prospects are almost gone and the Yankees will use their Ohtani money to get Martinez the Cuban prospect. The clock is ticking.

zambonir 2017-12-10 20:45:27 UTC #648

But that's where I still get stuck. What's the reason? I don't think there is really a difference between an explanation and an excuse, the former becomes the latter if you think it is an explanation you disagree with.

Like, I know why Pete Mackanin used to bat Freddy Galvis high in the order, I just think he was wrong. I know why the Phillies probably aren't going to sign Yu Darvish (contract length), or Chris Archer (loss of draft pick), but many fans disagree with their choice.

But we don't really know why when it comes to both looking back and ahead on the international market. We can say they didn't spend and they should have. We can look at the class they signed and say it wasn't good enough. We can even argue (as you have) that the allocations are worth more than the prospects. But there are too many variables. And at some point, it has to be true that they simply couldn't get any other players they wanted, or valued them differently (i.e. they didn't think Maitan was worth it), and, eventually, that there aren't other players worth getting. You can definitely disagree with the result, and the reasons for the result if you actually know what they are, but I don't think it's makes sense to criticize them for not acquiring additonal allocations for players that may not even exist (either because they literally don't exist or they aren't players the Phillies have a shot at or they aren't players the Phillies actually want).

andyb 2017-12-11 00:23:15 UTC #649

Because Klentak is not perfect. He has been unable to spend to the max internationally. He needs to do his job better and figure out how to do that. Is it malicious negligence? No. Most likely a learning curve. This is 2 seasons in a row so he better learn quickly.

You are right that results matter. Saying there was nobody left to sign is just a concession of saying doing a B+ job is good enough. It is not like his drafts and trades have been special so far.

Austinfan 2017-12-11 01:20:41 UTC #650

Who has spent to the max?

zambonir 2017-12-11 01:49:04 UTC #651

I still think it's partly by design. They just hired like a dozen new international scouts. The analytics department has gone from 1 to well over a dozen. I don't think he was willing to go all-in on evaluations from the inherited apparatus, which is admittedly not ideal given these were years in which the team had greater opportunities, but I still think it might be true, and that everyone (Middleton, MacPhail, Klentak) was willing to take some mulligans.

andyb 2017-12-11 04:56:31 UTC #652

Yankees will. Rangers will. Angels will. Several others. Remember half the big spending teams were under penalty so this year was a unique situation with only a handful of teams that were easily capable of spending to the max. It requires cash to do so (which we have). It requires some depth to trade for allocations potentially (which we have).

There is also no excuse for last year. Biggest allocation meant we could trade for more than anybody else. And a dozen extra prospects came available.

andyb 2017-12-11 05:02:54 UTC #653

Not sure the international hiring was all that "extra". Teams hire lots of scouts every year. We supposedly had one of the better scouting groups already (or were those Sal knows what he is doing articles just a smoke screen). My guess is we have expanded our international staff by a small amount. There is always lots of turnover.

I don't know why it is hard to say that the Phillies have done a decent job but could have done better by spending more the last two years. I agree Klentak is figuring out how to do his job. But it is also fair to say there have been bumps along the road even with the good moves he is making. His drafts do not appear great so far. His trades and free agent signings so far have not been stellar for the money on average, even if the moves have been with the correct intent. The whole Appel/Derek Fisher thing looks like a catastrophic mistake now even if there were good reasons to do it. Their scouts were just wrong on Appel and I am guessing like 10 of them including Klentak had seen him some in person.

zambonir 2017-12-11 06:02:46 UTC #654

I do not recall the team announcing such a huge amount of hires in previous seasons, not under this GM or under the last one. Now, it's certainly possible they've just decided to give those guys a little more recognition w/ a press release (their names still don't appear on the front office roster). But I still think there has been a lot of adding and replacing, much as there was in Chicago and Houston.

In fact, it was in the report:

Because some scouts are not returning and others have been moved from independent contractor to full-time status, the combined net gain in amateur scouting (one), international scouting (five) and professional scouting (one) is seven.

I genuinely do not know if replacing 8 international scouts and adding five constitutes a sea change, or if the new people represent new ideas and philosophies. But it's certainly possible. And definitely says they recognize the important of that market.

And listen, I think Sal (and Almaraz) are not locks to be here in two years. Even if it's just to scapegoat. Though in Sal's case I think he is already just not as influential as he once was, because he prefers to be on the ground, and his value is on the ground, but that will also make him more removed from the decision-making hierarchy. As the newly promoted Assistant GM Minnitti is Sal's immediate superior now, whereas Benny Looper was merely an adviser.

allentown 2017-12-11 12:59:54 UTC #655

"I don't think he was willing to go all-in on evaluations from the inherited apparatus, which is admittedly not ideal given these were years in which the team had greater opportunities."

If that is the reason, then Klentak is a fool. He can't use the unspent money in future years and even if the scouts choose an ok/good guy thinking he's very good/great, they still have a prospect and that is better than the alternative, which is not having a prospect. Plus, Sal and his scouts have shown that they can find talent. With MLB putting the clamps on all avenues of spending, missed opportunities can't be reclaimed in future years. It is just more unspent $ into the owners' pockets.

Or perhaps he is simply tending his career, making sure that a slow approach gives him more years in the job, before he is held accountable.

zambonir 2017-12-11 18:48:45 UTC #656

I don't buy the idea that any prospect is good enough though. If Sal came to Klentak with a player he liked for $2 million and Klentak didn't think that player was worth more than $500K, you're not gonna get the player, and you're not gonna overpay for him just because you can (let alone trade for allocations, which aren't free). And that doesn't automatically mean there are four other $500K players you can sign. Or that the allocations are available, at a price worth paying.

To me at some point it's like the 41st round of the draft. You wouldn't leave your draft allocations unspent of course, but those don't have to be acquired, and a lot of those late picks aren't even worth paying for the letters on a uniform, and if they are, you're releasing other guys to accomodate them. It is not an unlimited system.

It just seems like there is something both imaginary and absolutist about assuming that no matter what, it's better to trade current players in the system for allocations and that there are obviously teams ready to trade their allocations that the Phillies are just ignoring, when they've already made several allocation trades. Would I prefer that they'd signed Maitan or get a big-ticket Cuban? Sure. I think it's fine to say the Phillies failed to fully exploit the market when the best and most players were available but, I don't believe it's essential they spend to the max after they aren't.

And even great GMs usually don't last long enough to lose their job because of amateur signings (and if they do it's because the big league team is suffering, which is still 3-5 years away from being any kind of issue because of recent drafts/international). In this case, I don't believe Klentak is self-preserving because MacPhail and Middleton share his long-term plan (Middleton may have his doubts but they certainly aren't about 16 year-old kids in the DR).

andyb 2017-12-11 20:42:47 UTC #657

The flip side to that is that any allocations unspent add zero value to the team and we know that the actual money spent on international players is a huge value in terms of $/WAR since it is an artificially limited market created by collective bargaining. So the real equation is whether what you can sign is better than what you trade to get allocations. In the Phillies 4 trades that got allocations we traded little value. The conclusion is that this year allocations have been well worth the acquisition price even as that price has increased a bit with Ohtani and the Braves prospects towards the end.

In general I think you over-react when I say Klentak could have done better here. I am not saying Klentak is an absolute failure. It is just something he could have done better. Last year was the most egregious because we were the only team that could acquire lots of slots because we had the biggest pool. This year it is more that we probably could have added another top 50 prospect or two. All the talk about getting 4 of the top 50 is hidden by the fact that we only got #12, 25, 41, and 42. So it is a set of prospects skewed towards the bottom of the list when 11 teams could not get any top 50 because they were in the penalty in the first place (and other teams like the O's traded their allocations). We had a good international class but it could have been deeper with a little more money spent.

Austinfan 2017-12-11 21:47:18 UTC #658

The money spent on international players varies in value.
The Cubans were a huge value because they were older and expensive, so only a few teams had the money to play and they were easier to evaluate.
I'm not sure LA players at 16 are better values than the amateur draft, much higher flop rate for the more expensive players (i.e. 1st rd money).
Just look at the bonuses the Braves gave to overpay, even without losing those players it was mostly wasted money.

Once the top players are off the market (which is usually 6-12 months BEFORE July for the most part) you're looking at prospects that are much longer shots.
So overpaying for the remaining prospects is generally going to be low value.
Now signing a lot of kids to low cost deals may be high value, simply because you can "rinse and repeat" every year and retain only those who exceed your expectations.
So if you sign 30 kids for $10-25K, that's still less than a million and you only have to hit on one per year. Or sign 1 second tier prospect with a 20% chance of success.

So I'm skeptical that it's easy to spend all your allocation efficiently unless you have the deals in place, but then you have to coordinate signings and allocations.
And there's a lot of competition for deals, some years you can land Ortiz, other years you're looking at maybe 1 in the top 10 or so and 3 more in the top 50, and that's still a darn good haul.
As we saw, the price for allocations went up when sellers saw they had a "sellers" market - worth paying for a Japanese star or a better known quantity in the Braves prospects (with a year in the GCL), but maybe not for marginal LA prospects.

andyb 2017-12-11 21:49:21 UTC #659

But spending $0 still gets you 0 future WAR. That is fundamentally the problem here.

Austinfan 2017-12-11 21:50:20 UTC #660

Spending $5M on marginal prospects might get you 0.1 expected WAR.
At that point just buy a solid veteran backup like Nava and you'll get more value.

zambonir 2017-12-11 21:52:08 UTC #661

I don't disagree that he could have done better, I just don't think, at this point, that he could do better. But it doesn't seem like you've been issuing a report card for past work, it seems to me the argument has been that he should still be trading for allocations and still spending to the max, now (and hey, he still could, if there really is a good enough player available).

If they'd wanted a second Braves player badly enough they certainly could have gotten one so I have to presume they had their reasons. Doesn't mean their reasons are correct but I doubt those reasons are indifference, thrift, or a failure to properly value the international talent pool.

andyb 2017-12-11 22:01:32 UTC #662

Well yeah, but the reality is that spending an additional $5 million internationally generally gets you much more than 0.1 WAR. Spread it over 5-10 prospects and it is a huge value because you get WAR for modest cost for 6 years of control.

There just is no justification to consciously spend less here. The intent should always be to maximize each resource. Nobody can do it perfectly, but one should strive to maximize the resources one has.

Austinfan 2017-12-11 22:12:23 UTC #663

You're confusing average return with marginal return.
On average you might get 1 WAR (6-8 years later) for every $5M spend in LA. Don't know, haven't seen any study on this, but just sayin' for argument's sake.
On the margin, once the best values are locked up, the cost per WAR will rise. And you'd expect the marginal LA WAR to cost significantly more than the average WAR.

Once the top prospects are locked up,there are few players worth spending serious money on, unless you don't mind spending $10-20M per expected WAR.
The third tier prospects aren't worth overspending unless you just want to burn your owner's money.
Long shots are where you can exploit spending on scouts, the players are probably cheaper to sign than the cost of gathering information concerning whom to sign.