July 2, 2017 International Signing Period

Philsmania 2017-12-14 17:08:50 UTC #704

I got to imagine that the Phillies have irons in the fire if not ducks in a row while they are out getting all this allocation money. I don't think they are getting these allocations just in case something falls in their laps.

andyb 2017-12-14 17:16:20 UTC #705

This morning is obviously new information so I commend them for that. Of course everyone who argued that allocations were not worth it also needs to walk back some of their comments. If the BA tweet is true and we have traded for $2.25 million total that is good - something like 3rd overall this year (out of the 10 teams that were really in a position to trade for allocations in the first place).

It probably is an acknowledgement that the Phillies messed up last year big time when they traded for none and could have traded for more than any other team. That seems a huge mistake in hindsight given the nominal cost of these allocations.

Austinfan 2017-12-14 17:29:24 UTC #706

Odds are Klentak simply wasn't able to line anyone up last year, negotiations start a year before the signing date, so if the organization wasn't prepared to sign these guys two years ago then they couldn't have used the allocation money effectively.

One reason they've expanded the international scouting group is probably to cover the waterfront as early as possible so they're in position to use allocations if they trade for them. Scouts not only identify prospects, they build up networks of contacts, and can then introduce scouting management people to the right "agents" when it's time to talk tortillas.

andyb 2017-12-14 17:38:17 UTC #707

Every post seems to be a justification that Klentak is always right about everything they do. More than a dozen Cuban prospects became available after the Phillies spent most of their original pool money. The Phillies could have signed some players from this batch. They were among the ONLY teams that could have done this without going into the penalty since they started with the largest pool and could have traded for the largest amount.

Last year was a mistake. They appear to be correcting that a bit this year. The additions to the international scouting staff are nice, but we actually don't know if they are adding significantly to what they had already or whether their staff is anywhere near the top of MLB. They have been middle of the pack for the last decade. Hopefully this puts them closer to the top tier.

gmwannabe 2017-12-14 18:39:32 UTC #708

Agree with philsmania. there must be someone or something in mind that they acquired some more allocation money. Who else is available beside contreras or the lower, recently released braves prospects?
gm

zambonir 2017-12-14 19:18:51 UTC #709

I have never thought they aren't worth it, just that, if they weren't doing it, they had actual reasons, even if those reasons can be second-guessed. If they had people they wanted to sign badly enough, they'd have been on it. They've been trading for allocations since July and they still have another seven months before you can actually criticize them for not acquiring the max this time.

Austinfan 2017-12-14 19:19:28 UTC #710

I give Klentak the benefit of the doubt because it's obvious that he has plans to spend money, and Middleton has given him carte blanche.
He spent $60M last year on short-term deals to help the team and garner prospects.
He just spent about $17M a year the next two years to bolster the bullpen.
He's traded for $2+M in allocations this year.
He's spent millions to expand and upgrade scouting, analytics and player development.

While I realize there's an Ed Wade hangover among PhilliesPhans, so far I see no reason to think that reluctance to spend is a motivation behind any of Klentak's decisions. Reluctance to spend just to spend, that is, harboring both assets and Middleton's goodwill (often owners push to spend, then pullback when they see a lot of their money wasted on bad decisions), may influence some of his decisions - that is, Klentak may refuse to spend on the margin where he thinks it's inefficient. Throwing money at mediocre international prospects, for example. Or he may want to preserve optionality by not exposing himself to out years on players he think have a short shelf life (i.e. give 5 year deals to 3 year pitchers).

andyb 2017-12-14 19:33:17 UTC #711

It was more AF that argued that it was not worth it and that the cost of allocations was too much. Of course that line of thought has been modified to "it was always Klentak's plan to spend on allocations".

I offer opinions on what I think they should do. Klentak apparently agrees with me this year though the lack of action last year suggests that maybe in hindsight he regrets that. As I have said, Klentak has done a lot of good things. But mixed in with that is a trading and free agent record that is very mixed so far. He just has not done anything yet to suggest what he is doing is uniquely better than what most other teams are doing.

Austinfan 2017-12-14 20:15:41 UTC #712

I'm less interested in "uniquely better" than good execution.
Klentak took a year to assess the organization, then made major changes from top to bottom.
We'll see if this results in changes in drafting effectiveness, international spending, trades and free agency.

julio 2017-12-14 20:51:04 UTC #713

Matt Eddy has tweeted that he's confident of his number, having reviewed and netted out "all 31" trades involving international bonus pool money.

I don't yet have the amounts obtained in each trade, but here's Matt's list of the relevant trades:

7/2 Frohwirth to Marlins
7/2 Lovett, Eldridge to Mariners
7/28 Kendrick to Nationals
7/29 Hellickson to Orioles
12/15 Burdi to Pirates

Squire 2017-12-14 20:52:50 UTC #714

With or without regard to the total amount acquired, consensus is that they have 1,050,000 left, right?

andyb 2017-12-14 20:57:52 UTC #715

Consensus minimum I guess. We have reporting that had them with $900K left before Gutierrez. Now if those reporters had thought they only had acquired $1 million or $1.25 million at that time then that number could be higher but I doubt it.

andyb 2017-12-14 20:59:21 UTC #716

Great news if true. It just contrasts with the news reports after the two late July trades that said the Phillies acquired $1 million in slots. I assume the difference is that the last two trades were for larger slot numbers than were implied in the news stories at that time.

julio 2017-12-14 21:02:03 UTC #717

Best answer, I think, is "Don't know." If Matt Eddy's reporting is accurate, we know how much pool they had... but we don't have a good handle on all the bonuses paid. I've listed the ones I've been able to document, but there are a lot that simply don't appear to be available publicly.

andyb 2017-12-14 21:02:51 UTC #718

I did look through his Twitter feed and apparently the Mariners 7/2 trade was for $500K and not $250K.

Squire 2017-12-14 21:09:09 UTC #719

To be candid, none of the local Phillies beat writers are interested enough in this to be keeping a separate tally. So I feel pretty confident that the 900K number that a couple of them had prior to the Gutierrez signing came right from the team itself. So I'd be very surprised if we have anything more than 1,050,000 left (900,000 less 350,000 Gutierrez signing + 500,000 acquired today). Just my take.

julio 2017-12-14 21:15:11 UTC #720

Matt Eddy has listed only five transactions, which is consistent with the public transaction records. The CBA, Attachment 46, stipulates that bonus pool money may only be traded "in increments of $250,000, unless the Club is assigning its entire remaining Signing Bonus Pool in a single transaction.".

I don't know, but I would guess that the news reports in late July that referenced $1 million in pool money had reference to the return on the Kendrick and Hellickson trades (e.g., $500k each, or $750k/$250k). The Burdi deal today has been reported at $500k. If these assumptions are correct, that means that the Frohwirth and Lovett/Eldridge deal (which could have been two separate transactions - and at one point the Lovett deal was reported as to the Mariners, and the Eldridge deal to an unknown team, so these may well have been two separate transactions) collectively yielded $750k - or $250k (the minimum) per player traded.

The above is just speculation, but the numbers are plausible, IMHO.

andyb 2017-12-14 21:20:57 UTC #721

Good news in all this is that it is likely that a few of the signings where we don't have bonus numbers were likely in the $100K plus category. Not that far above it, but enough to fill up the extra $500K+ in spending we don't know about.

Austinfan 2017-12-14 21:40:58 UTC #722

Wouldn't surprise me if that was a Sal thing, he's probably missed out on hidden gems he liked but couldn't pay, now he has more freedom to focus on these guys and make sure they don't get away.
$100K isn't much to a "name" prospect, but it's a lot easier to lock up someone only a few scouts have noted, v only being able to offer $10-20K.

julio 2017-12-14 22:19:14 UTC #723

For whatever it's worth, $1.05 million available is what Matt Gelb is reporting, at philly.com:

It would be nice to know the details here - how much bonus pool we got in each trade, what bonuses we paid - but given MLB's tendency to treat such details as "too much information" for us rubes, and the pretty universal non-aggressive reporting we get from local sportswriters, I wouldn't be surprised if we never get all the details.