July 2, 2017 International Signing Period

[andyb]

As fans, the unsigned prospect is more interesting than the fringy AAAA big leaguer

True. The other side though is that fringy AAAA big leaguers have less trade value than their playing value since there is a cost to holding down a 40-man roster spot or the use of options. This is one reason that younger prospects get a little extra value if they do not have to be exposed to the various ways minor league players get moved around (waivers, options, minor league free agency, etc.). A Perkins or that other minor league SS we had briefly have little value because their talent level, while good enough to maybe have a bench role, is also talent level that is easily replaced by another AAAA guy.

For instance the Phillies are setting themselves up now to have some AAAA guys with little value. Does a guy like Mark Leiter really have any value if he is our 11th best reliever and 9th best starter. Below him are younger guys that need to start. And above him are guys that have more ceiling that you don't want to lose. So he may get sacrificed in a numbers game at some point.

Circling back to the international guys - yes there is some allure in young untested talent that might have a high ceiling. But there is also allure in 5 years of control which is gone with the older AAAA prospects.

[Austinfan]

Leiter has plenty of value, he's shown he can be effective as a #6 starter and long reliever.
Leibrandt, however, is on the AAA bubble.

[andyb]

But Leiter does not really have much value in the same way that no AAAA player really has much value. He is easily replaced. One can find inexpensive Leiters in many places because there are too many of them to fit on 40-man rosters. Like Andres Blanco has no value because Pedro Floriman is virtually free.

[allentown]

Very true. On the (to me) higher prospect value, the Phillies have Tocci and Davis off the 40-man and there for the taking. Better to trade for allocation and sign some more high ceiling prospects than to wave goodbye for 50K. If we want AAAA guys, there was Perkins and also Stassi. A lot of the guys being traded for allocation have struck me as quite marginal prospects, not in our top 25 level.

[zambonir]

I just don't find it convincing that the Occam's Razor explanation is negligence or disinterest or flawed strategy rather than, they simply didn't want or couldn't sign enough players yet. As noted, they still haven't spent all of their allocation - which they made trades for - so until they actually do, it doesn't seem fruitful to wonder why they haven't acquired more, or signed more guys. If they need it, they'll get it.

I suppose it is semantics to say that their failure to sign a second Braves player is a sign of failing to prioritize int'l talent vs. a sign that they didn't think any of those players were worth signing at the price they'd cost. But to me it's still just a debatable baseball operations decision, whereas with the previous regime it obviously was a sign of disinterest, apathy or thrift. (And probably also not having enough scouts, though we don't really have enough information to know that. But we know there will be more this year than there were last year.)

[andyb]

I just don't find it convincing that the Occam's Razor explanation is negligence or disinterest or flawed strategy rather than, they simply didn't want or couldn't sign enough players yet.

This is just excuse making. Why can't we evaluate them on what they sign and when we see they rank like 8th in baseball question why they could not do more. This is just flawed B+ level execution and it is as simple as that. Last year was much worse. Inexpensive allocations. Lots of prospects. The Phillies had the most opportunity to trade for allocations and just let that moment pass.

Don't get all fancy and talk about Occam's Razor when this is simply flawed execution. Teams should be evaluated on how much talent they signed (admittedly still in question since we don't know how these prospects will develop) and how they use their resources. And the Phillies simply failed to trade for $2.8 million in allocations last year so they messed up. That aint Occam's Razor. That is flawed execution.

[Austinfan]

Do you have a list of teams that traded for allocations the past two years and how much (excluding the Angels of course, any team would trade significant resources to sign Otani)?
Are there all these teams trading for multiple millions of allocations to sign prospects?
The Phillies have traded for something like a million each of the past two years, is that middle of the pack or top of the list?

[andyb]

The Phillies traded for zero allocations last year. That would be bottom of the pack. This year probably close to 10 teams have traded for them. But 11 teams were in the penalty and a few teams like the O's had no interest. So the Phillies appear to be middle of the pack this year.

And the Phillies are not cash limited. And have lots of prospect depth. The Phillies should be leading here, not middle of the pack.

[Squire]

I could see the Phillies picking a guy in the rule 5 draft tomorrow and then trading the guy for allocation money.

[zambonir]

A B+ is pretty good! Obviously the facts are what they are, they could have done more/signed more. But why didn't they? Neither of us know, but if any specific argument is just excuses, saying, "they messsed up, they just did" isn't especially revealing either. It'd be nice to hear more about it from the media but nobody at the major league level cares that much, and Klentak doesn't tend to say much anyway.

[Squire]

Phillies acquire International Pool Money by trading Nick Burdi (Rule 5 Pick) to the Pirates. Next round on andyb

[andyb]

Phillies acquire International Pool Money by trading Nick Burdi (Rule 5 Pick) to the Pirates. Next round on andyb

I prefer to think that the immense social media pressure from me (and Allentown of course) caused the Phillies to realize their mistake.

[Squire]

P.S. Gelb says they got 500K in pool money for Burdi

So by my count we have 1,050,000 left and can offer a Braves buy 1,250,000

[andyb]

So we should have about $1.05 million to spend. Note of course we can acquire $2 million more if our total additions are $1.50 million (note that the reports about their 4 initial trades were a little unclear on whether they had acquired $1 million or $1.25 million).

$900K left when the Ohtani potential amounts were reported. Minus $350K for Gutierrez. Plus $500K now unless we have signed any other minor prospects in the mean time.

We should have enough to get Juan Contreras potentially. Probably not enough for Julio Pablo Martinez. Or they could sign a couple more of the Braves prospects though the rest were all $300K signings. The Korean SS does seem appealing in a Trea Turner kind of way (70-80 speed).

[jimbomill]

But do we really believe their upside is worth 10X the cost of Burdi and his upside?

[fish]

But do we really believe their upside is worth 10X the cost of Burdi and his upside?

I would agree with that sentiment, but it probably had more to do with feeling they couldn't manage room for him on the 40 man to get him back to normal to evaluate him.

[andyb]

Keeping a reliever who has not pitched above AA on the major league roster all year depresses Burdi's value, so a team is not valuing whether Burdi will accumulate more potential WAR than a $500K international signing. Burdi is probably more valuable in that comparison. But the loss of a major league roster spot (and a 40-man spot of course) means that some other player will be lost as the cost of keeping Burdi.

The international slots just have extra value as they become players that don't have to be protected for 5 years (or 6-7 in some cases). Tocci had less value to the Phillies this year even though he had a solid year in Reading. It is not his playing value that decreased, it was his roster situation that got more complicated.

[bigegypt0417]

Matt Eddy (MattEddyBA)

[andyb]

That is $500K-$750K more than has been reported previously.

I have some doubts as to whether it was true because our announced signings plus maybe $500K in miscellaneous signings don't add up to anywhere near $6.15 million being spent up to today. The bonuses in Julio's post add up to 5.03 million. The lone $10K bonus actually does not count in the pool so we are at $5.02 million. I suppose it is possible that the other 16 names add up to over $1.1 million but it seems a bit much.

If true it is great. Just not 100% sure the reporting is perfect here.

[bigegypt0417]

The Phillies traded for zero allocations last year. That would be bottom of the pack. This year probably close to 10 teams have traded for them. But 11 teams were in the penalty and a few teams like the O's had no interest. So the Phillies appear to be middle of the pack this year.

And the Phillies are not cash limited. And have lots of prospect depth. The Phillies should be leading here, not middle of the pack.

The Phillies traded for zero allocations last year. That would be bottom of the pack. This year probably close to 10 teams have traded for them. But 11 teams were in the penalty and a few teams like the O's had no interest. So the Phillies appear to be middle of the pack this year.

And the Phillies are not cash limited. And have lots of prospect depth. The Phillies should be leading here, not middle of the pack.

This narrative even if the difference is what you say then they aren't in the middle of the pack...they are actually one of the teams that's been the most active.

Correct?