Sox with "plenty of money" left in Jan 15 international pool

[southsider2k5]

22 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Luis Reyes is signing for $700K, Rafael Álvarez is $300K and Uribe is $200K. Not sure on the others but Sox should have like $3 million left. No idea what their plan is 

Any big guys from Cuba still to be cleared?

[Chicago White Sox]

12 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Any big guys from Cuba still to be cleared?

Let’s hope so.  Don’t want them wasting $2.5M on a Yolbert Sanchez type prospect because there is nothing else to use our money on.

[Chicago White Sox]

Man, the more I think about this, the more annoyed I get.  There better be a plan here centered around some significant Cuban prospects who recently defected, because otherwise this is a colossal fuckup.  And I say that as a big Paddy fan, who has probably been the most effective member of our front office when you consider the many constraints Jerry has imposed on him.

[Springfield Soxfan]

Let’s hope Hahn/Paddy will commit to, AT LEAST, the money being spent.  

[Chick Mercedes]

11 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Let’s hope so.  Don’t want them wasting $2.5M on a Yolbert Sanchez type prospect because there is nothing else to use our money on.

I hope someone kicks the Cuban crutch out from under these guys, and they learn how to scout and sign around the world well like other professional scouting departments. Ban Cuba. Get legitimate.

[southsider2k5]

5 minutes ago, Chick Mercedes said:

I hope someone kicks the Cuban crutch out from under these guys, and they learn how to scout and sign around the world well like other professional scouting departments. Ban Cuba. Get legitimate.

Their "problem" is they aren't chasing after the 12 and 13 year olds illegally like some organizations are.  By the time the Sox are scouting kids, many are already locked up, not leaving much in the way of options.  The problem is the Sox are "legitimate", it is a group of teams who flout the rules who aren't.  You can argue whether the Sox should be in the sandbox with them or not, but that is what the system is right now.  As was said in the previously quoted fangraphs article, there are $3 million commitments in the classes of 2025 and 2026.  Those kids are 13 and 14 right now.

[southsider2k5]

Hopefully the Sox are one of the two other teams.

 

[G13]

Christian Saez out of Cuba would be a great addition.  Turns 16 sometime this yr, left handed first baseman that's 6'3" and hits bombs.

What really cripples us is that most of these kids are in agreement with a club illegally at a young age.  Ever since the scandal down south Jerry has made sure we play by the book.  So the only real chance we got on getting any talent is with cuban players since it's a lot more difficult for scouts to get into Cuba.

[southsider2k5]

7 minutes ago, G13 said:

Christian Saez out of Cuba would be a great addition.  Turns 16 sometime this yr, left handed first baseman that's 6'3" and hits bombs.

What really cripples us is that most of these kids are in agreement with a club illegally at a young age.  Ever since the scandal down south Jerry has made sure we play by the book.  So the only real chance we got on getting any talent is with cuban players since it's a lot more difficult for scouts to get into Cuba.

INteresting.  Not much on him.

 

 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

On 1/5/2023 at 6:46 AM, Chicago White Sox said:

Man, the more I think about this, the more annoyed I get.  There better be a plan here centered around some significant Cuban prospects who recently defected, because otherwise this is a colossal fuckup.  And I say that as a big Paddy fan, who has probably been the most effective member of our front office when you consider the many constraints Jerry has imposed on him.

And you should be annoyed. This is the Fangraphs article on the 2023 Int'l amateur class https://blogs.fangraphs.com/board-update-2023-international-amateur-prospects/

It's basically a ranking of the top 33 guys. All are slated to receive $2M+ . 25 of the 32 teams are projected to sign those 33 players . Of those 25 teams 8 of them are projected to sign 2 of those players (Dodgers, Cubs, AZ, CLE. ,Minn., TOR., Hous., and BOS. )  The Sox are among the 7 teams not on that list .

I'd venture to guess that a certain amount have had commitments for a couple of years now , but to suggest that the majority of them have had commitments for a while is saying most of the teams are doing  underhanded things the Sox aren't doing is BS. The average age of these players looks to be about 17 years old.

It appears as if either the Sox aren't signing anyone for $2M or if they are they don't appear to be high in the rankings. I know it is difficult to rate these players so Longenfeld is basing it on the bonuses and then scouting the players after he knows what their bonuses are going to be. Over 50% of these players are from the DR.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

32 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

INteresting.  Not much on him.

 

 

Maybe he's one of those half dozen guys already committed to signing in 25/26.

[PolishPrince34]

Sign me up. Those Twitter posts are old. Anything current?

[G13]

3 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

And you should be annoyed. This is the Fangraphs article on the 2023 Int'l amateur class https://blogs.fangraphs.com/board-update-2023-international-amateur-prospects/

It's basically a ranking of the top 33 guys. All are slated to receive $2M+ . 25 of the 32 teams are projected to sign those 33 players . Of those 25 teams 8 of them are projected to sign 2 of those players (Dodgers, Cubs, AZ, CLE. ,Minn., TOR., Hous., and BOS. )  The Sox are among the 7 teams not on that list .

I'd venture to guess that a certain amount have had commitments for a couple of years now , but to suggest that the majority of them have had commitments for a while is saying most of the teams are doing  underhanded things the Sox aren't doing is BS. The average age of these players looks to be about 17 years old.

It appears as if either the Sox aren't signing anyone for $2M or if they are they don't appear to be high in the rankings. I know it is difficult to rate these players so Longenfeld is basing it on the bonuses and then scouting the players after he knows what their bonuses are going to be. Over 50% of these players are from the DR.

Do the Braves have any of those players signed?  They used to be one of the most aggressive players in the international market.  They got hit with a scandal also which embarrassed the owner and organization, they were even penalized by MLB.  So to say, it's completely BS that an owner wouldn't  step in and say something to the international scouts (his employees) about how they do business after embarrassing the organization, is crazy.  

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

14 hours ago, G13 said:

Do the Braves have any of those players signed?  They used to be one of the most aggressive players in the international market.  They got hit with a scandal also which embarrassed the owner and organization, they were even penalized by MLB.  So to say, it's completely BS that an owner wouldn't  step in and say something to the international scouts (his employees) about how they do business after embarrassing the organization, is crazy.  

1st of all you could have read the article to see the Braves are on the list. What I said is to assume that with so many of the MLB teams represented in that list that most of them are doing underhanded things and that the only reason the Sox aren't on that list is because they are one of the only teams with scruples is BS. Plenty of these 25 teams are more than likely not getting commitments 2 years in advance.

Since the Braves are on that list and ,as you say, they were embarrassed, then it stands to reason they would be one of the teams now doing things the right way.

The Sox not being one of the teams represented is garbage. They have sucked in the DR forever.

[South Side Hit Men]

“Lifetime” bans are only for players.

 

 

[bmags]

I always thought it was excessive. Glad it was overturned given what happened after.

[G13]

On 1/7/2023 at 11:54 AM, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

1st of all you could have read the article to see the Braves are on the list. What I said is to assume that with so many of the MLB teams represented in that list that most of them are doing underhanded things and that the only reason the Sox aren't on that list is because they are one of the only teams with scruples is BS. Plenty of these 25 teams are more than likely not getting commitments 2 years in advance.

Since the Braves are on that list and ,as you say, they were embarrassed, then it stands to reason they would be one of the teams now doing things the right way.

The Sox not being one of the teams represented is garbage. They have sucked in the DR forever.

My apologies, you are correct.  I follow MLB.com's international rankings and they have ATL's player Luis Guanipa ranked 34th, outside of the 33.

At the age of 17, so clearly not signed at 16 meaning, no deal beforehand was in place.

Edited January 10, 2023 by G13

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

On 1/9/2023 at 8:52 PM, G13 said:

My apologies, you are correct.  I follow MLB.com's international rankings and they have ATL's player Luis Guanipa ranked 34th, outside of the 33.

At the age of 17, so clearly not signed at 16 meaning, no deal beforehand was in place.

As I said in my original posts the rankings are very subjective and the fact that Guanipa is 6th ranked in this one just means he got a $2M+ bonus and then was ranked according to what Longenhagen thought were the top players among those who got 2M+.

I think there are teams that follow the rules ,not just the Sox but I think It's an easy excuse to use for when they fail to go after top DR talent on a consistent basis.

I supposed the real question is just how many teams are getting verbal commitments a couple of years in advance ? If we take Guanipa for example, just because he didn't sign at 16 doesn't mean he didn't already have a verbal commitment to sign at 17. However it is a risk for him to do that because verbal commitments don't mean squat if the team thinks he regressed from one year to the next. Teams will pull out of verbal agreements if they think the money will be better spent elsewhere and the player is now competing with another group of players.  Maybe he could've got $500K when he was 16 but someone said we'll pay you $2M if you wait and we see sufficient dedication  and growth.

Of course if the player waits he could get more from another team also so it's not just the teams that renege on verbal agreements.

[G13]

23 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

As I said in my original posts the rankings are very subjective and the fact that Guanipa is 6th ranked in this one just means he got a $2M+ bonus and then was ranked according to what Longenhagen thought were the top players among those who got 2M+.

I think there are teams that follow the rules ,not just the Sox but I think It's an easy excuse to use for when they fail to go after top DR talent on a consistent basis.

I supposed the real question is just how many teams are getting verbal commitments a couple of years in advance ? If we take Guanipa for example, just because he didn't sign at 16 doesn't mean he didn't already have a verbal commitment to sign at 17. However it is a risk for him to do that because verbal commitments don't mean squat if the team thinks he regressed from one year to the next. Teams will pull out of verbal agreements if they think the money will be better spent elsewhere and the player is now competing with another group of players.  Maybe he could've got $500K when he was 16 but someone said we'll pay you $2M if you wait and we see sufficient dedication  and growth.

Of course if the player waits he could get more from another team also so it's not just the teams that renege on verbal agreements.

Teams really don't back out of verbal agreements.  The players "representatives" will prefer to do business elsewhere in the future.  That has been stated a few times on podcasts by scouts that do business in Latin America.

Edited January 12, 2023 by G13

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

6 hours ago, G13 said:

Teams really don't back out of verbal agreements.  The players "representatives" will prefer to do business elsewhere in the future.  That has been stated a few times on podcasts by scouts that do business in Latin America.

From the article:

"We’ve now had a few years of the current hard-capped bonus pool system, and it’s become clear that some teams habitually over-commit pool space that they neither have on hand nor have the capacity to trade for. Those teams will then triage prospects later in the process and nix whichever verbal deals they see as the least favorable. Again, verbal agreements are sometimes made a couple of years in advance of a player actually being eligible to sign, a phenomena that tends to happen most often with top-of-the-market prospects. Because just a few months of physical development can be quite meaningful for such young athletes, prospects have a tendency to change a lot between when they make a handshake deal with a team and when they actually sign. Teams will sometimes renege on their agreements if they think the player has regressed, or if one of their other commitments has progressed enough that the team feels compelled to up their offer to prevent another club from swooping in with more money “late” in process, closer to signing day. Players have little to no recourse when this happens, though that might change depending on the outcome of a recently-filed lawsuit in the Dominican Republic. According to a source, testimony in that case was heard last week, and we may soon learn more about its outcome and subsequent fallout."

 As far as what you said about player reps prefer to do business elsewhere in the future, that is a balancing act. They know how the game works. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Reps from other teams do the same thing. In poor countries reps of players cannot afford to be picky. You have to remember anything you hear in a podcast will often paint a rosier picture such as oh no we never break verbal agreements when in fact it does happen because MLB jobs are on the line and things can change, a player gets hurt, others advance more in a given year etc.

Edited January 13, 2023 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[wegner]

I read that the pool $ the Sox have left can be traded....I thought that wasn't allowed anymore?

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

3 hours ago, wegner said:

I read that the pool $ the Sox have left can be traded....I thought that wasn't allowed anymore?

Although MLB entered into a new collective bargaining agreement in 2022, the system from the previous CBA carried over for the 2022 and 2023 signing periods.

SO therefore :

Can MLB teams trade international pool money?

 

 Teams are not allowed to trade their pool space during this signing period, which opens on Jan. 15, 2022, and runs through Dec. 15, 2022.Jan 11, 2022.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

On 1/6/2023 at 3:34 PM, PolishPrince34 said:

Sign me up. Those Twitter posts are old. Anything current?

The hard part is not knowing his birth date. He was born in 2007 so some time in 2023 he'll turn 16 and eligible for IFA so he should be drafted in July 2023. Definitely by January 2024.

[Sleepy Harold]

for those that want to follow along

 

 

 

[Sleepy Harold]