So how do the Braves use the money that they won't be allowed to spend on Int FA

[Horsehide Harry]

The Braves are effectively in International FA signing jail for the next 3-4 years. As has been discussed in many other threads, that's bad.

But, they do save the cash they would have spent obtaining those players.

Where do the Braves spend it? Or do they?

I think they routinely spend 3-5M every year on signing these players.

How could they use that to better the team both short and long term?

They could just buy a low level FA every year (another flyer type guy each year on a one year deal) and hope to strike gold.

They could just fold it into payroll and use as necessary, possibly allowing Liberty to say that they actually increased payroll (all while allowing them to be flat overall).

Or they could use it to take on a bad contract from another team as long as young talent comes with that contract - I'm thinking a deal with the Yankees for Ellsbury, Headley, Clint Frazier and Florial for Inciarte and Matt Adams. The Yanks want to get well under the luxury tax threshold and Ellsbury is the worst contract they have that they would like to move - he's making about $21.2M through 2020. Headley is making $13M through 2018. The Yanks could then use Inciarte in CF or trade him (they probably move Hicks) and they have MAdams for 1B/DH (and Insurance for Bird).

Braves play Ellsbury in CF until Florial is ready, likely after 2019. Frazier pairs with Acuna on the corners. Headley holds down 3B for 2018. The Braves net out about $25M in added payroll for 2018 but fill the 3B hole (which they likely would do anyway at a rate similar to Headley's $13M), then have a net add of $16.5M in 2019 (diff between Ellsbury and Inciarte contracts), then $14.5M in 2020, then a net benefit of $3M in 2021 (net between Inciarte's contract and Ellsbury's buy out).

Obviously the $3-5M the Braves would have spent on the International market isn't enough to cover the entirety of a move like this, but would help ease the cost burden taken on allowing you to bring in young talent.

Before anyone says the Yanks would never do it, consider that they are very conscious about staying below the Tax threshold this year, but are in the opening stages of a window of contention. The young talent I have included coming back from them isn't critically integral to their near term or long term success, they could move both.

They also could make a play for Stanton which I think they would like to be able to do but are limited by payroll, something along the lines of: Gardner, Hicks, Torres and Sheffield for Stanton.

[Enscheff]

It's a drop in the bucket that won't alter the plans in any noticeable way.

Best use for that money is likely to hold it in reserve for a deadline acquisition in case they are on the fringes of WC contention.

[bravesfanMatt]

for someone who has not followed this to much in the details, can someone do me a solid and tell me if we can only spend 10K on IFA next year or that our spending pool is only 10K. If it is the former, then wouldn't we not only use that ~4.75 million else where but trade the max you can trade of that money as well. Same question for the next 2 year restrictions when cut in half?

[Enscheff]

for someone who has not followed this to much in the details, can someone do me a solid and tell me if we can only spend 10K on IFA next year or that our spending pool is only 10K. If it is the former, then wouldn't we not only use that ~4.75 million else where but trade the max you can trade of that money as well. Same question for the next 2 year restrictions when cut in half?

They can certainly trade the international money they do have, but if you look at the players teams have gotten in return for pool money, they are...underwhelming. They should certainly do it because something is better than nothing, but the returns will be a fraction of the potential that pool money represents.

This notion folks have been tossing around that trading pool money for prospects to somehow mitigate not signing international guys is completely silly.

[bravesfanMatt]

They can certainly trade the international money they do have, but if you look at the players teams have gotten in return for pool money, they are...underwhelming. They should certainly do it because something is better than nothing, but the returns will be a fraction of the potential that pool money represents.

This notion folks have been tossing around that trading pool money for prospects to somehow mitigate not signing international guys is completely silly.

I would only think it would be more icing on a cake than the main dish. so basically the Braves and team B are submitting competing offers for player X.. Braves can trump Team B with International pool money... assuming both teams offers are comparable.

shouldn't have used the word 'only'.. you might be able to take gambles on guys straight up. washed up starters that you want to convert or something along that line.

[biggentleben]

They can certainly trade the international money they do have, but if you look at the players teams have gotten in return for pool money, they are...underwhelming. They should certainly do it because something is better than nothing, but the returns will be a fraction of the potential that pool money represents.

This notion folks have been tossing around that trading pool money for prospects to somehow mitigate not signing international guys is completely silly.

First, primarily the Orioles have been the ones trading IFA money, and well, the Orioles....

Second, most of the IFA deals have been for players fairly high up the ladder. The way to maximize the funds in trade is trading for a guy who hasn't hit full-season yet. Heck, even the Reds got a solid prospect out of Ventura with their trade by taking a guy in low-A, but if you're willing to take a guy in rookie ball, you're going to get more talent for the dollar.

[Enscheff]

First, primarily the Orioles have been the ones trading IFA money, and well, the Orioles....

Second, most of the IFA deals have been for players fairly high up the ladder. The way to maximize the funds in trade is trading for a guy who hasn't hit full-season yet. Heck, even the Reds got a solid prospect out of Ventura with their trade by taking a guy in low-A, but if you're willing to take a guy in rookie ball, you're going to get more talent for the dollar.

So your theory is teams are going to trade talented players in rookie ball for extra money to sign talented guys they will then assign to...rookie ball?

I’m guessing that is highly unlikely, but I’ll certainly be following the situation with interest.

[bravesfanMatt]

So your theory is teams are going to trade talented players in rookie ball for extra money to sign talented guys they will then assign to...rookie ball?

I’m guessing that is highly unlikely, but I’ll certainly be following the situation with interest.

That was my take as well. No one really trades young talent just to acquire younger talent they don't know if they can even sign.

You might get a guy that is repeating rookie ball for the 3rd time.. but you are going to be looking in the rough for some Diamonds at best.

[biggentleben]

So your theory is teams are going to trade talented players in rookie ball for extra money to sign talented guys they will then assign to...rookie ball?

I’m guessing that is highly unlikely, but I’ll certainly be following the situation with interest.

I'm saying they'll trade talented guys they do know for the unknown shiny new toy that they believe could be better. Is Ventura better than any outfielder signed this past July? Certainly not. Has Ventura already shown more than many of these guys signed in July for that $1M+ ever will? Absolutely. That's where playing on the team desiring the unknown works for the right GM, and there are teams every year willing to give up a guy with a talent base like Randy Ventura for $1M of IFA money. That means you only get 4-5 guys per year rather than signing quite a few at $100K if that was the route instead, but it's a good option when the $10K limit is in place.

[Enscheff]

I'm saying they'll trade talented guys they do know for the unknown shiny new toy that they believe could be better. Is Ventura better than any outfielder signed this past July? Certainly not. Has Ventura already shown more than many of these guys signed in July for that $1M+ ever will? Absolutely. That's where playing on the team desiring the unknown works for the right GM, and there are teams every year willing to give up a guy with a talent base like Randy Ventura for $1M of IFA money. That means you only get 4-5 guys per year rather than signing quite a few at $100K if that was the route instead, but it's a good option when the $10K limit is in place.

LOL...

If all $1.25M in pool money gets a team is a 19 year old with no power who was already been moved away from being an everyday CF, I think that proves my point.

The Braves will not be trading pool money for any prospects of note. While getting 3-4 Randy Ventura's is better than nothing (barely), it isn't going to come anywhere close to mitigating the loss of not being able to sign international prospects.

[biggentleben]

LOL...

If all $1.25M in pool money gets a team is a 19 year old with no power who was already been moved away from being an everyday CF, I think that proves my point.

The Braves will not be trading pool money for any prospects of note. While getting 3-4 Randy Ventura's is better than nothing (barely), it isn't going to come anywhere close to mitigating the loss of not being able to sign international prospects.

No one said that it would.

Also, update your Ventura scouting report.

[Enscheff]

No one said that it would.

Also, update your Ventura scouting report.

Oops, you’re right. He’s 20, going into his age 21 season, not 19. Scouting report updated.

Or are you talking about the no power part? Nope, can’t be that with his puny ISO.

Maybe you’re talking about the not playing CF anymore? Can’t be that either since he played many more innings in LF and RF than CF.

So what else needs updating?

[biggentleben]

Oops, you’re right. He’s 20, going into his age 21 season, not 19. Scouting report updated.

Or are you talking about the no power part? Nope, can’t be that with his puny ISO.

Maybe you’re talking about the not playing CF anymore? Can’t be that either since he played many more innings in LF and RF than CF.

So what else needs updating?

Things other than stat sheets...still in the system, he'd rank VERY high in my personal ranks, higher than Waters for certain.

[Enscheff]

Things other than stat sheets...still in the system, he'd rank VERY high in my personal ranks, higher than Waters for certain.

Ventura a better prospect than Waters. Got it. Thanks.

[GovClintonTyree]

We also have a Dominican baseball school and other investment in scouting and developing in International markets. Since there's no draft, you've got a tabula raza. Or, the Wild West.

I had an idea, but I don't see any way to make it work under the current rules.

The Braves, even after being ripped to shreds by busting up the Superstation, planting teams in Florida and DC, are still the South's team. The best athletes in America are in the South, just ask any ACC or SEC football fan. There's also overwhelming poverty and a lack of economic opportunity in Southern cities.

How could you structure a program that took the Dominican model and put it to work domestically? Impossible? Minor rules changes? Could we sign "undrafted" 15-17 year olds, pay them meaningful (for them and their families) money that would still be quite cheap in the overall scheme of baseball economics? Develop our own, right here?

Just trying to think outside the box a little bit.

[Enscheff]

We also have a Dominican baseball school and other investment in scouting and developing in International markets. Since there's no draft, you've got a tabula raza. Or, the Wild West.

I had an idea, but I don't see any way to make it work under the current rules.

The Braves, even after being ripped to shreds by busting up the Superstation, planting teams in Florida and DC, are still the South's team. The best athletes in America are in the South, just ask any ACC or SEC football fan. There's also overwhelming poverty and a lack of economic opportunity in Southern cities.

How could you structure a program that took the Dominican model and put it to work domestically? Impossible? Minor rules changes? Could we sign "undrafted" 15-17 year olds, pay them meaningful (for them and their families) money that would still be quite cheap in the overall scheme of baseball economics? Develop our own, right here?

Just trying to think outside the box a little bit.

You realize the regular draft was designed specifically to prevent that from happening, right?

[biggentleben]

You realize the regular draft was designed specifically to prevent that from happening, right?

And many believe the draft shouldn't exist as well. Putting in some maximum amounts that a team can spend on amateur talent, domestically and internationally, each season along with some ability for a player to get an education while employed is something that many have been discussing in the league office. It's way too radical for domestic currently, but they're taking incremental steps toward the goal internationally.

[Enscheff]

I definitely think MLB would be wise to pump more money into amateur baseball in hopes of attracting more impoverished athletes.

[Enscheff]

Another couple data points...

Twins just got the Mariners 2017 5th round pick for $1M in pool money.

Twins just got the Angels 2017 3rd round pick for $1M in pool money.

I would say neither guy is a better prospect than Waters, who Big Ben claims is the type of prospect who can be acquired with international pool money.

Both teams are finalists for Ohtani and are trying to accumulate funds to help acquire him. This is quite possibly the most valuable international pool money will ever be.

[thethe]

I definitely think MLB would be wise to pump more money into amateur baseball in hopes of attracting more impoverished athletes.

I'm all for this. Id do the same domestically. I think the future is up in the air for the NFL. Can't wait to have more Buxtons gliding around in center