Thoughts on the International Market?

is the idea that, the longer we go with not hitting on a big time signing (and Contreras is good, but he wasn’t from what I recalled, considered in that top 10 to 15 of Latin American prospects, but I could be wrong …) that we risk making it harder.

That said, this was largely to get a discussion going on the international adventures of Jim Hendry and Co. As noted, I don’t have a huge issue with it, just thought it was a good blurb from Badler and a topic worth discussing.

one has to be concerned about the age check they are doing about him.

Seems like the market is drying up on him a bit and he could go for much less than the 4 mil that was anticipated.

we seem to be okee dokee in the system for shortstops. if we can get an outfielder or two like choo from cleveland, i’d be really happy. if we can sign quality athletes from korea cheaper than from latin america, ride the pipeline.

thanks for the comments. there’s a lot i don’t know about the international aspect, particularly as it relates to the Cubs (I mean, teams that go after the splashy signings, you sort of end up hearing about their efforts out there), so I thought it’d be good to discuss. I don’t think it’s a topic that gets enough attention in terms of the player acquisition process. Heck, we don’t discuss DSL 1 and 2 enough and that is a part of the system (granted, there’s reasons, different strike zones, parks, umps and so forth).

I want to be clear, I don’t have a problem with what the Cubs are doing. I thought it was a good blurb, a topic that has tickled my mind for a bit the last couple of years. I also think my comment mid-way might’ve been poorly worded. I’ve read some comments from very knowledgeable folks loosely suggesting that the Cubs are better off going the safer route due to their past failures, and I’m not apt to believe that. Is there a general organizational philosophical shift that is needed? I’m not so sure about that, as I certainly don’t know enough to be qualified. There are some questions I have, but that’s just as a fan.

I think there’s so much focus on “raw toolsy” and “smart ‘baseball’ player” when it comes to player acquisition. Each draft, you see comments about that, and what organizations do. Two teams and their recent history grab my attention. The Indians have largely been lauded under Shapiro. Heck, I’ve admired how he runs his organization. That said, without a doubt, they haven’t succeeded. Let’s go Tribe had some interesting to discussion on this awhile back, and one of the points that stood out to me was the idea that the Indians were too monotonous (poor word choice). I look at the Red Sox system and compare that to, say, Oakland. Oakland went through a huge down period as they slightly adjusted their focus in regards to player acquisition (I’m certainly not qualified to get too in depth on that, I’m sure there are folks at AN and Sickels that could address that). During this period, we saw Epstein loosely take the model Beane developed and expand it to build one of the best systems in the game. They may not be ranked #1 (and rankings are really more for discussion) each year, but they are consistently good.

So what does Boston have to do with what I’m randomly musing about? I look at the diversity within that system and it just makes you go, wow. There’s power arms, “pitchability” guys, righties and lefties. There’s raw toolsy upside guys, the “polished” bunch. There’s big time signings from all over, there’s big overslots. There’s slap hitters, power hitters, speed guys. Certainly, they have the financial capability, which helps. What I’m getting at is that they have a diverse collection of not only talent, but skill.

The reason I harp on gambling some is twofold. Certainly, this is more in regards to fan discussion, as I have no knowledge on Hendry that Joe Blow picking up the paper or surfing the net couldn’t find. First, with our system right now, and with our win now squad, it’s the right time to try and find assets for the future. The focus should be more than finding talent to fill in. Finding value is as important. 2nd, the fan focus that you read about is often geared towards the “polished” guy with perhaps a bit less upside. Problem is, those guys can be found, and they don’t help build your nucleus for the future. I’m not saying we should make rash gambles. You need your mix of talent, but the online discussion is often focused a bit in one direction, IMO, and I can venture a guess why, but I’m getting way off point.

Sorry, a bit long winded, and I don’t think I really answered anything. I’ll try again at another time. Well, I guess I’ll try to find a way to cap it. My issue I guess is that I think the discussion too often focuses on readiness and ready talent for the Cubs, but with where we are, I wouldn’t mind a few gambles to balance out our system.

Damn, that was longwinded, my bad.

that the price for a specific 3 1/2 tool player in korea (where we have a solid base) is cheaper than the price for a similar 3 1/2 tool player in venezuela. we have two teams in the venezuealan league, so we are trying there. but you can only spend a dollar once. the cubs think they’re getting better value in the pacific rim. in the name of our shortstop in boise, i hope they’re right.

though some cap may be necessary, i don’t think it would have the same benefit as in the NBA or NFL where there is, effectively, no minor leagues. if the Dallas Cowboys are limited to the same limited salary as the Titans or the Chiefs, they can spend more money on coaches and/or facilities. that’s about it.

If the big money Mets/BoSox/Dodgers/Angels/Yankees/Cubs are limited in their 25 man roster, if they’re smart, they’d burn the excess on signing amateurs. Then the Pirates would complain that they couldn’t get guys at ‘slot’ because players would publish lists of which teams they’re willing to sign with.

I guess if everyone goes at slot, that could be addressed, but the extra revenue by ‘big revenue’ teams will still get spent somewhere. Something should probably done, but New York ‘expects’ better than anyone else. In the opera world, many cities, you might get one or two a week. The New York Met has shows M-Saturday, and two on Saturday. A fanbase that will always attend will generally merit a better product than a fanbase that only sells half of its tickets or less.

Should the Cubs (or Yankees) be held down to the level of a city (Oakland/Tampa) that, for whatever reason, doesn’t show up….. even when they have a good team?

It’s not the worst idea in the world, but the biggest problem is the fact that many (if not every) team in baseball has set up academies where they invest time and effort into developing players, educating them, etc. Teams would not want to do that if they were forced to put these guys into an international draft, especially considering how much time and effort that would take.

With the NBA, there are at least pretty good international leagues and training programs where guys can develop their skills effectively. However with MLB, when you’re talking about guys from countries like the Dominican Republic and Venezuela where money is limited, you probably won’t see those kinds of leagues develop to help young guys learn how to play the game effectively.

I don’t know how you’d effectively replace the academies if you did an international draft. If you can find a way over that hurdle, then it’d be feasible.