The Braves, Nationals, and Padres are all expected to bust their international spending allocations for the upcoming July 2 period, Ben Badler of Baseball America reports. With many other clubs serving the first or second year of their own bans on doling out $300K+ bonuses to pool-eligible players, and other organizations not heavily invested internationally, it appears these three clubs are prepared to enter the void.
As Badler explains, the teams don’t yet know exactly how much cash they’ll have to spread, but the general spending capacity won’t come as a surprise since it’s based on prior year’s record. Teams can also acquire individual spending allotments from other clubs via trade, and with many organizations unable to spend all of their slots, there should be plenty available. But a club can only increase its total allocation by 50%, so even adding in some new capacity presumably won’t keep the teams from avoiding the penalties.
The disincentive for going over the pool, of course, is a 100% tax on overages above 10% as well as up to a two-year timeout (after a 15% excess) on future bonuses of over $300K. But it’s long been expected that changes could be coming to the international amateur market — as commissioner Rob Manfred just addressed yesterday — and it’s certainly possible (but hardly certain) that budget-busting organizations won’t end up being handicapped under a new system.
Atlanta, especially, is expected to attack the market, per Badler. He says that the rebuilding organization is lining up a series of signings that could equal or exceed the Yankees’ spree from 2014-15. Their biggest targets are top-shelf infield prospect Kevin Maitan and fellow Venezuelan standout Abrahan Gutierrez, a catcher.
Meanwhile, the Nats are looking to build on their success at low-budget international signings with some real cash at their disposal. A pair of middle infielders — Dominican Yasel Antuna and Venezuelan Jose Sanchez — are near the top of their list.
Likewise, the Padres have not only been laying the groundwork for a series of deals with Dominican and Venezuelan players in the $1MM range, but are eyeing a major strike on the burgeoning market for young Cuban talent. Badler says that the San Diego organization is attempting to convince several players who may soon become free agents to wait for the new signing period to ink their deals.
Not sure what the Angels have been doing in IFA the last few years, haven’t been really paying attention, but you’d have to think they should be signing everybody possible. Their farm system is in total shamble.s. The fact that Torreyes, who they just claimed from NY, is now a top 10-15 prospect for them is really bad.
I think they went over on Baldoquin a year or two ago.
I sure wish the Mets. Would be more aggressive in the int’l market. Omar did well there, Sandy….not enough of a focus.
Undue criticism. Let’s went to the limit signed Hernandez last year to a high bonus. The year prior signed Ali Sanchez, Luis Carpio, and Ricardo Cespedes who all have decent profiles so far in their adjustment to the minor leagues. This year landed 2 top 30 prospects, went over the threshold briefly before dealing Bumgarner to the Angels for more space.
This pretty much explains why the Braves went so pitcher heavy in trades and the draft, they were counting on building their offense via IFA. Frankly, if they can nab Maitan, Gutierrez and Severino that would be a major coup and a big boost down the line for their bats.
Does this really even matter? Aren’t they permanently on the edge of reforming the cap and/or promising an international draft?
Yeah it matters. If MLB decides to alter the IFA signing amounts after clubs blow past their allotments, it will be screwing those teams that held their cash for later. This is changing the rules mid-stream. Not only is it patently unfair, it sets a terrible precedent for future negotiations. A change may be in order but it must be delayed until the teams are adequately punished for disregarding their limits.
There are other ways to account for it beyond just delaying some otherwise agreeable solution. Like, substituting loss of draft picks for the lost signing bonus ability.
Beyond that, it still matters because these teams are apparently preparing to drop large amounts of money on international signings. Whether or not there are penalties that accrue now or in the future, that’s still of interest.
Hey, thanks for the responses guys.
The IFA is overwhelmingly players that are 16-17 years, high school juniors. Even the best of them are not going to impact a MLB team for 4-6 years.
Some much sooner than others. Thanks to Cuba there is the occasional late entry and some of those “juniors” are ready in less than two years. I think the Rangers will go big and bust this J2 as well. Shocked there was no mention.
I can’t think of any that have made it that soon that were part of IFA. Can you name those players?
The recent trend of expediting the applications of Cubans seeking major league opportunities hasn’t quite caught up to that point yet.
Uhhhhhhh……..IFA? Puig…. should I go on? What about the rest of the statement. I wasn’t being negative, merely trying to keep the convo going. Guess I should of said RANGERS blow up the J2!!!!!!! That was the talk I wanted to illicit.
One that I thought of was (admittedly many years ago) Andruw Jones of the Braves. He signed as a 16 year old and was in the majors at 19.
While I generally agree that most IFAs that sign at 16 take many years to develop and become valuable contributors at the MLB level, there are definitely exceptions.
I also think that newer methods of scouting, projections and player evaluations have helped improve the crapshoot of signing boys and projecting the players they will be as men.
While still FAR from an exact science, it does appear to me that teams are getting better at predicting player development than in years past.
Yes, you should go on. Puig signed at age 21. The kids that this article is talking about is 16 & 17
It’s silly to name one or two exceptions to the rule with regards to 16- and 17-year-olds taking 4-6 years to develop. One person tried to name Puig, who, as has been pointed out here already, was 21 at the time. Then he said “should I go on?” as if he had a gamut of other examples locked and loaded. Another person named Andruw Jones. That was 20 years ago. One player has been named here as an example of a 16-year-old prospect being ready in less than four years.
From where I’m standing – as a Braves fan that watched the organization dump a young core of players controlled through at least 2017 – I couldn’t care less what the they do in the IFA market. Team management is telling me this team won’t be good until 2018, and there’s no guarantee of that happening.
And all these IFAs the Braves are supposed to “open the bank” for won’t be good for another six years, and that’s the absolute best-case scenario. They’re just as likely – if not more likely – to be busts or merely average.
So good luck with that.
Fine clearly I was only thinking of the IFA portion of the comment. So how about Jurickson Profar? Felix Hernandez? Rougned Odor? I did not check but they all debuted at 19. I am sure there are more I just have no interest in looking it up not really sure why my comment was attacked to begin with.
Because you’re naming anamolies. There are far more busts and players who fail to reach their initial high expectations or even live up to their signing bonus. So it’s misleading to name a few players spread out over years who happened to pan out within three years of being 16. That’s like someone saying they’re about to become rich because they bought a lottery ticket. Sure, a few actually win, but most don’t.
Playing the lottery isn’t the best way to get rich and signing a 16-year-old IFA isn’t the best way to build a team.
Wow you really want to “WIN” this convo………. you got me I named a few players that panned out.
Now tell em what he’s won!
What the hell are the Phillies doing…………….