International News, Rumor and Signing Thread

[rico43]

With nothing like this currently on the board, we'll start this thread with as much of the standing information has we have, and remember.

First, the late news is that the Reds, who would have had the second-highest international signing budget this coming July, are OUT of the running for top dollar international free agents. That's because they are investing $6 million to sign Cuban shortstop Alfredo Rodriguez. They had only $2.87 available in the current signing period, which is when they have announced the Rodriguez signing will go in effect. One, that puts them in the 100 percent tax bracket, so Rodriguez is actually costing them $12 million. Second, it eliminates them from paying a free agent more than $300,000 for the next two signing period.

The current signing period ends June 15, so the Reds figure to be active until then with the penalty already in effect.

Baseball America estimates that the Reds would have had close to $5 million available next July had they not taken this plunge.

Last July, BBA indicated the followong:

Teams suffering the maximum penalty (two years): Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Royals

One-year penalty: Blue Jays

In second year of two-year penalty: Angels, Diamondbacks, Rays, Red Sox, Yankees

 

[rico43]

Last week, it was announced that the Braves made another inroad into Nicaragua:

Allen Alger Hodgson signed Tuesday January 12 with the Braves while attending a private baseball academy in the Domincan Republic.

A right-hander, previously reported that he clocks 94 at age 16, but he's also 6-2, 195, which could well mean he grows into a beast.

The Braves' previous inroads into Nicaragua include Shendell Benard, last October, and prospects Omar Obregon, Evertz Orozco, Dilmer Mejia and Jason Laguna.

Hodgson pitching in front of a 2015 Turner Field crowd (had to do it).

 

[clvclv]

With nothing like this currently on the board, we'll start this thread with as much of the standing information has we have, and remember.

First, the late news is that the Reds, who would have had the second-highest international signing budget this coming July, are OUT of the running for top dollar international free agents. That's because they are investing $6 million to sign Cuban shortstop Alfredo Rodriguez. They had only $2.87 available in the current signing period, which is when they have announced the Rodriguez signing will go in effect. One, that puts them in the 100 percent tax bracket, so Rodriguez is actually costing them $12 million. Second, it eliminates them from paying a free agent more than $300,000 for the next two signing period.

The current signing period ends June 15, so the Reds figure to be active until then with the penalty already in effect.

Baseball America estimates that the Reds would have had close to $5 million available next July had they not taken this plunge.

Last July, BBA indicated the followong:

Teams suffering the maximum penalty (two years): Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Royals
One-year penalty: Blue Jays
In second year of two-year penalty: Angels, Diamondbacks, Rays, Red Sox, Yankees

And there you have several main targets as trade partners - not only for prospects, but signing slots as well.

Assuming the Angels don't sign another OF, they could provide a landing spot for Markakis. Once healthy, I could see the Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Jays, Angels, and D-Backs all showing interest in Grilli - and possibly even Johnson (other than the Dodgers) if he's pitching well. As someone else mentioned, I'd even consider shopping Vizcaino to those teams for the right return - if the focus is 2017 and beyond, you'd still have Simmons, Withrow, Rodriguez as back-end options, plus potentially Folty, Banuelos, and maybe even Sims or Jenkins as the long-term rotation begins to sort itself out. If I were handicapping things today, my guess is that the 2017 rotation is Teheran, Newcomb, Blair, Wisler, and one of those guys - that gives you three other late-inning options if they're not traded.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

Three teams ready to spend some money..

http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/three-teams-will-break-international-bonus-pools-2016/

 

[CJ9]

I knew we were the favorites for Maitan. I'd read a lot about Gutierrez but didn't realize we were the favorites for him, too. Wow.

 

[Enscheff]

And there you have several main targets as trade partners - not only for prospects, but signing slots as well.

Assuming the Angels don't sign another OF, they could provide a landing spot for Markakis. Once healthy, I could see the Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Jays, Angels, and D-Backs all showing interest in Grilli - and possibly even Johnson (other than the Dodgers) if he's pitching well. As someone else mentioned, I'd even consider shopping Vizcaino to those teams for the right return - if the focus is 2017 and beyond, you'd still have Simmons, Withrow, Rodriguez as back-end options, plus potentially Folty, Banuelos, and maybe even Sims or Jenkins as the long-term rotation begins to sort itself out. If I were handicapping things today, my guess is that the 2017 rotation is Teheran, Newcomb, Blair, Wisler, and one of those guys - that gives you three other late-inning options if they're not traded.

If the Braves are going to go past their pool, I see no reason to trade talent for pool money. They did it this season in order to avoid sitting out for the next 2 years. All it would do for them next signing period is save some tax/fine/fee money.

 

[UNCBlue012]

I knew we were the favorites for Maitan. I'd read a lot about Gutierrez but didn't realize we were the favorites for him, too. Wow.

No doubt. Add Maitan abs Guitierrez and we have almost a decade of legit talent coming in. Insane.

 

[clvclv]

If the Braves are going to go past their pool, I see no reason to trade talent for pool money. They did it this season in order to avoid sitting out for the next 2 years. All it would do for them next signing period is save some tax/fine/fee money.

That's entirely dependent on what you consider "talent". You're also talking about 100% tax/fine/fee money. If Maitan's going to cost what's rumored - around $4-$5 million - you're talking about an $8-$10 million total hit. Trading guys that don't factor into the long-term plans (Grilli, Jim Johnson, Norris, and potentially Markakis) in deals that include international slots wouldn't only save you upwards of $1-$2 million, that turns into $2-$4 million saved when you consider the 100% penalty. It also saves you the rest of the salary commitments owed to those players. The $22 million for the last 2 seasons of Markakis' deal could be applied to next June's draft bonuses. That would cover ALL of them and allow the Braves to go over slot to sign ANYONE that fell to them with the later picks regardless of their bonus demands.

Imagine it this way - that money would allow the team to pay whatever it costs for Maitan, Gutierrez, and any other international players they're interested in AS WELL as scooping up a Daz Cameron-type (or even two) who slide because they demand first round money regardless of where they're picked.

 

[chop2chip]

That's entirely dependent on what you consider "talent". You're also talking about 100% tax/fine/fee money. If Maitan's going to cost what's rumored - around $4-$5 million - you're talking about an $8-$10 million total hit. Trading guys that don't factor into the long-term plans (Grilli, Jim Johnson, Norris, and potentially Markakis) in deals that include international slots wouldn't only save you upwards of $1-$2 million, that turns into $2-$4 million saved when you consider the 100% penalty. It also saves you the rest of the salary commitments owed to those players. The $22 million for the last 2 seasons of Markakis' deal could be applied to next June's draft bonuses. That would cover ALL of them and allow the Braves to go over slot to sign ANYONE that fell to them with the later picks regardless of their bonus demands.

Imagine it this way - that money would allow the team to pay whatever it costs for Maitan, Gutierrez, and any other international players they're interested in AS WELL as scooping up a Daz Cameron-type (or even two) who slide because they demand first round money regardless of where they're picked.

That's sort of true. Although, if the Braves do plan on spending 15-20 million as Badler suggests, then they could never trade for enough international slots to cover the difference. As for the US amateur draft, I hope our bigger constraint is the draft pool and not our own resources. Trading Markakis/Norris/etc. wouldn't help the team get a Daz Cameron type if we don't have the draft pool to begin with.

The better strategy is to blitz the international market, trade our own international slots for prospects, and spend all of our draft pool money in the US draft.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

That's sort of true. Although, if the Braves do plan on spending 15-20 million as Badler suggests, then they could never trade for enough international slots to cover the difference. As for the US amateur draft, I hope our bigger constraint is the draft pool and not our own resources. Trading Markakis/Norris/etc. wouldn't help the team get a Daz Cameron type if we don't have the draft pool to begin with.

The better strategy is to blitz the international market, trade our own international slots for prospects, and spend all of our draft pool money in the US draft.

I think they can only trade for a max of 50% above their pool amount no matter what. So, let's say the pool amount is $5M, then they could conceivably trade for an additional $2.5M. Then they total $7.5M without having to pay tax OR go into the penalty box for the next year or two.

So, in a scenario where they don't trade for ANY slot money and they spend $10M where they have a base pool of $5M, then they will in effect be paying $15M because of the 100% penalty they get for going $5M over the base.

However, if they have a base of $5M and trade for another $2.5M and they spend $10M, then they total $12.5M with the tax.

So, if the total "bucket" of dollars to spend is $15M, then it still makes sense for the Braves to acquire slot money where they can.

One scenario would be where they acquire slot money to bring to $7.5M, then they sign players totaling less than $7.5M which keeps them from tax or penalty AND allows them to reset again next year, assuming the rules don't change.

 

[chop2chip]

One scenario would be where they acquire slot money to bring to $7.5M, then they sign players totaling less than $7.5M which keeps them from tax or penalty AND allows them to reset again next year, assuming the rules don't change.

Based on the rhetoric from prospect-philes that doesn't seem like a good assumption to make. An international draft is coming and this may be the last year to exploit the draft pool restrictions.

Even if that weren't the case, we would likely only be able to sign two of our top targets with 7.5m. The better play would be to double (triple?) that amount and sign a half dozen top 25 international prospects, as has been rumored to be our intention, and simply eat the tax. IIRC, Mark Bowman reported earlier this offseason that the major league payroll would be lowered in order to allow us to be more flexible in the international market, and this strategy supports that narrative.

 

[clvclv]

That's sort of true. Although, if the Braves do plan on spending 15-20 million as Badler suggests, then they could never trade for enough international slots to cover the difference. As for the US amateur draft, I hope our bigger constraint is the draft pool and not our own resources. Trading Markakis/Norris/etc. wouldn't help the team get a Daz Cameron type if we don't have the draft pool to begin with.

The better strategy is to blitz the international market, trade our own international slots for prospects, and spend all of our draft pool money in the US draft.

Whatever way they choose to go, the point remains - trading Markakis gives you $22+ million to allocate elsewhere, whether that's paying for the fines for surpassing international limits, any fines for exceeding their draft pool, whatever - and then apply that excess money to paying the contracts as well, which is tantamount to increasing payroll. If the total cost for acquiring Maitan is $10 million ($5 million bonus plus $5 million penalty), you could use that $12 million that's left to pay his salary for the first 4-5 seasons once he reaches the big leagues (depending on what he gets in arbitration of course).

 

[bravesfanMatt]

Based on the rhetoric from prospect-philes that doesn't seem like a good assumption to make. An international draft is coming and this may be the last year to exploit the draft pool restrictions.

Even if that weren't the case, we would likely only be able to sign two of our top targets with 7.5m. The better play would be to double (triple?) that amount and sign a half dozen top 25 international prospects, as has been rumored to be our intention, and simply eat the tax. IIRC, Mark Bowman reported earlier this offseason that the major league payroll would be lowered in order to allow us to be more flexible in the international market, and this strategy supports that narrative.

although I agree that I would want to blow past our international slots pool.. You would think when the CBA is renegotiated and an international draft is instituted... there will be a clause still punishing the teams that go over this year or still in the penalty from last year. Not sure what those restrictions would be (maybe forfeit 1st rd if in one year penalty and 1st and 2nd round if in a two year penalty.. or two years of 1st rd forfeit).. But there will surely be a clause written in.. So I would not make my decisions solely based on this being the last year of pool spending.

 

[chop2chip]

although I agree that I would want to blow past our international slots pool.. You would think when the CBA is renegotiated and an international draft is instituted... there will be a clause still punishing the teams that go over this year or still in the penalty from last year. Not sure what those restrictions would be (maybe forfeit 1st rd if in one year penalty and 1st and 2nd round if in a two year penalty.. or two years of 1st rd forfeit).. But there will surely be a clause written in.. So I would not make my decisions solely based on this being the last year of pool spending.

There's no way that would be the case. If they tried to do that, it would be immediately shut down by an arbitrator if a team challenged. The new CBA can't be used to retroactively punish. Can you identify any piece of legislation or contract that has been used in that manner in the past? I certainly can't.

 

[chop2chip]

Whatever way they choose to go, the point remains - trading Markakis gives you $22+ million to allocate elsewhere, whether that's paying for the fines for surpassing international limits, any fines for exceeding their draft pool, whatever - and then apply that excess money to paying the contracts as well, which is tantamount to increasing payroll. If the total cost for acquiring Maitan is $10 million ($5 million bonus plus $5 million penalty), you could use that $12 million that's left to pay his salary for the first 4-5 seasons once he reaches the big leagues (depending on what he gets in arbitration of course).

Sure. There is certainly a logic for trading Markakis. It just can't be for the reasons you stated in the post I responded to.

 

[clvclv]

Sure. There is certainly a logic for trading Markakis. It just can't be for the reasons you stated in the post I responded to.

The overriding point is the key. You're getting a little bogged down in the details. There are several ways they could allocate the money (the main point) - the important thing would be maximizing the return for him. If the Angels would take on ALL the money and give us a couple international slots, one could argue that would be even better than a C-Grade prospect - even from another team. The system is rapidly getting to the point that we've already got so many legitimate prospects that could contribute come 2017-2019, you could argue we'd simply rather have the money.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

There's no way that would be the case. If they tried to do that, it would be immediately shut down by an arbitrator if a team challenged. The new CBA can't be used to retroactively punish. Can you identify any piece of legislation or contract that has been used in that manner in the past? I certainly can't.

Well in the current CBA, they address the possibility of an intnl draft in 2014 and have verbiage about teams going over in 2012 -2013... I don't see teams like the Yanks/Soxs and Dodgers being ok with a new CBA where teams like the Braves and Nationals blow it out on slot money, but suffer no penalties..

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Based on the rhetoric from prospect-philes that doesn't seem like a good assumption to make. An international draft is coming and this may be the last year to exploit the draft pool restrictions.

Even if that weren't the case, we would likely only be able to sign two of our top targets with 7.5m. The better play would be to double (triple?) that amount and sign a half dozen top 25 international prospects, as has been rumored to be our intention, and simply eat the tax. IIRC, Mark Bowman reported earlier this offseason that the major league payroll would be lowered in order to allow us to be more flexible in the international market, and this strategy supports that narrative.

I don't disagree at all. I was just trying to list the varying scenarios.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Whatever way they choose to go, the point remains - trading Markakis gives you $22+ million to allocate elsewhere, whether that's paying for the fines for surpassing international limits, any fines for exceeding their draft pool, whatever - and then apply that excess money to paying the contracts as well, which is tantamount to increasing payroll. If the total cost for acquiring Maitan is $10 million ($5 million bonus plus $5 million penalty), you could use that $12 million that's left to pay his salary for the first 4-5 seasons once he reaches the big leagues (depending on what he gets in arbitration of course).

I have been all over trading Markakis for 6 months (and frankly never understood the signing to start with given the context of the current team). He's like having a ocean vessel puzzle piece in hand when you are working on a desert landscape...

 

[smootness]

Wait, huh? I assumed that meant those were teams we might get to give us some talent for our signing slots...since we won't need them.