I don't think the gift card analogy works. A gift card is free money, "Here's a gift card for $25 bucks. Enjoy". The int'l money is more like a note that says you're allowed to spend your money. "Hi, welcome to Target. How much money do you have in your pocket. I have $30. Great, here's a note that allows you to spend $25 in our store. Present it to the cashier at checkout". The O's won't actually lose that money, they'll just lose the ability to spend their money. If MLB deposited $5M into the O's bank acct, and told them to use it by a certain date, or they're taking it back, I would totally agree with you. But there's no reason to spend their money, just because MLB said they can.
But your last comment does make me reconsider. If he was a FA that was projected to get much more than the O's would have to give him, then it sounds reasonable.
The O's won't actually lose that money, they'll just lose the ability to spend their money. If MLB deposited $5M into the O's bank acct, and told them to use it by a certain date, or they're taking it back, I would totally agree with you. But there's no reason to spend their money, just because MLB said they can.
The O's will lose the money though, at least everyone but the Angelos family will. because it won't be spent anywhere else. The international money does not need to come at the expense of any other part of the budget. It's such a miniscule portion of the overall budget. The idea that if we spend $2M on Sanchez (or had we spent $3.5M on Gaston) that we then can't have some other nice thing is false on it's face. If we were maxing out MLB payroll, then there is some reason to believe that might be the case. But when out payroll is slashed down to about 1/2-2/3 what it's been in recent years, there is no rational reason to believe them when they say "we didn't spend the money here because it will be better spent elsewhere". Just buy both things! There is plenty of money in the budget to do so.
I agree with everything you said except the first sentence. Nobody is losing any money. No they may not spend it anyplace else or ever again. But that is not losing money.
Turning down free prospects is bad business. Sanchez, or anyone the Orioles sign with this money, is effectively free. They will be acquired with an asset that is disappearing in a few months. There is nothing unique that the Orioles can do with the money they have available to be spent on international prospects if they choose not to spend it.
Would you decline to use your 3rd round pick if it was some weird draft where there are no players you grade as worthy of the 3rd round and all that were left were 5th or 8th or 9th round caliber players?
Unless I am totally misunderstanding how the process works, this is no way like free prospects or free money. The Orioles have the ability to spend up to 5 M or whatever is left, but it is real money. It was not given to them, and they decided to put it in their pocket. It is their money that they are spending. Again, if they do not think the kid is worth 5 million or he is not accepting what they are willing to spend, than giving him the whole thing if you think he is not worth it, is bad business.
He is not a free prospect.
Good points. On a theoretical econ level, I would disagree. But it practical, real life terms, I see your point. Why not sign a player when you have the money and the need.
No one is losing any money. The money is already Angelos money. MLB did not give it to them to spend...they gave them the right to spend it.
I agree with the last part of the post. Be aggressive and look for good players at the right deal, but if Elias and company do not thing the Sanchez kid is a good player, then do not spend on him.
Mackus understands how the process works. He's just saying that as fans, given a choice between spending the money on the team (even if the prospect is a longshot) or spending it on a new yacht for the Angelos family, we should probably be in favor of spending it on the team.
I guess the Os' would probably argue that by trading slot money for longshot prospects, that's exactly what they're doing.
I'm saying that "what the player is worth" is far less of a concern than it usually is in this scenario. If it were the beginning of the period and you thought he was only worth $400k then you wouldn't give him $2M just because, because there are other things to spend that money on. But if it's the end of the period and you think he's worth $400k, then you should gie him $2M if that's what it takes to sign him, because it's the end of the period and there is nothing else to spend that money on.
The choice of what to do with this money is not a zero sum game. It's not "spend it on international free agent(s) or spend it on something else". They can spend it on both the international FAs and that something else, because they have plenty of money available and we are talking about the smallest possible of expenses when it comes to running an MLB franchise. The idea that the team will be unable to do some other thing that needs to be done (pick your favorite thing amongst any of a dozen small expenses) because they spent a couple million on a 16 y/o Dominican or a 22 y/o Cuban is completely outrageous. It's frugality with no benefit.
Siginng Sanchez for $2M would not be "spending just to spend", even if they think he's only worth $500k. Signing him for $4M when they know $2M would get it done would be spending the extra money just to spend it. But spending $2M to get him if any less of an offer means he goes to TB or Oakland or KC or wherever, is just being smart, even if as compared to other imaginary International FAs that don't exist, he is only worth a fraction of that $2M. He's worth it overall, not just because the market is artificailly limited and he'd be worth every penny and more if he were a true free agent, but because there is nothing else to do with that money. He's got a far better chance of helping the Orioles than the nothing does.
I just see it a different way.
If they give the kid 2-3 million and he stinks, it is wasted money.
I liken what you are saying as akin to playing the lottery. I get you have to play to win. They still have more $$$ than anyone else, so if they want the kid then they can still get him. It feels like they do not want him.
Why the hell would any owner (business person) spend $2M on a player that the team believes is only worth about $400K? That is stupid business and baseball is a business. Certainly when you get to the end of the timeframe I can see spending a bit over projected value. But 5X. Not a chance.
Yep, real games would give us something to talk about, even though it is likely to be depressing.
Because there is a dramatic difference between what a guy costs in International free agency versus what they are worth in raw dollars. Before the current rules were in place, teams spent $20M, $40M, even $75M for these guys. Yusniel Diaz cost the Dodgers $31M. Even low level guys were getting big numbers. Then they capped it and said teams can't pay that much. So MLB is getting these guys for a tenth of their real value if it were a free market.
An international FA who is worth half a million of bonus money would get 5 or 10 times that if the system weren't rigged.
Added to that, is the time sensitivity of the acquisition. You can get him now and it doesn't dig anything into your 2019 signing period. And if you don't sign him, there is likely nobody else worth signing. It's an expiring asset. Like use-it-or-lose-it vacation time. Even if you have nowhere to go, you're gonna take off that last week in December if the alternative is you let vacation time go unused.
There are very, very limited excuses that are acceptable for not signing Sanchez. Just like there were very limited excuses for not signing Gaston. "We only think he's worth 75% of what it'll take to sign him" is not a viable excuse.
Which I actually agree with. Didn’t mean to kick a hornets nest. Trading it is better than nothing this time around, given the circumstances. Still hopeful that we’ll sign Sanchez.