Great to see them (apparently) following through on their plan:

The new course of action was charted last October, shortly after the A's had concluded their worst season since 1998. Beane sat down with Forst and others and conducted a top-to-bottom organizational review, Oakland's first in years. A new strength coach was brought in to examine why players were having such a huge problem with injuries. The A's also hired five new area scouts, adding to a staff that had become one of the smallest in the league, and re-sectioned the country to get better coverage. They increased their scouting budget in Latin America and elsewhere internationally, and have earmarked more money for signing bonuses.

Won't the Yankees simply outbid the A's, if they want to?

If the Yankees' evaluation of him is in the same ballpark as the A's, then they will.

The advantage big markets have isn't so much that they have more money in their money pit to spend on players, but rather because of their market players are worth more to them, which allows them to spend more profitably on the same talent.

let's hope he works out better than those other two guys.

Billy Beane, the Eternal Inoator

The mere thought of the A's making an international splash is too much for my cranium to contemplate. If they pull it off, holy crap that'll be exciting. Can't wait to see him make it to Stockton in 2012.

This is fun and why I'm fundamentally opposed to an international draft.

Is there a more speculative bet in baseball than signing a 16 year old pitcher from Latin America? Notwithstanding that Moneyball is more myth than reality at this point, this really doesn't seem like an A's type of move.

This is fun and why I'm fundamentally opposed to an international draft.

In fairness, I think the draft is fun too. I'm also in favor of getting rid of the draft entirely of course.

Is there a more speculative bet in baseball than signing a 16 year old pitcher from Latin America? Notwithstanding that Moneyball is more myth than reality at this point, this really doesn't seem like an A's type of move.

Of course signing a 16 yo Dominican pitcher is super risky. But it really sounds like this kid might be different than a typical foreign signing. With some rare athletes you can be fairly certain of their stardom from the time they hit puberty.. if Inoa really is that kind of guy than the money seems worth it.

Usually, if I'm a GM, I'd like to sign lots of 6'4, 160 kids throwing 85 with a clean arm for five figures (and hope that one or two of 'em turn into 6'5, 210 men throwing 93) than the more hyped guy for seven figures.. but of course i'm no GM.

Signing guys like this is always risky but the amounts of money you're wasting for a typical Latin Bonus Baby really aren't all that much in the big scheme of MLB, and definitely worth it to add some talent to your system easily.

"I'm also in favor of getting rid of the draft entirely of course."

Why? Just so a few players (very few, of course) can eke out a few more dollars out of an eager bidder?

Getting rid of the draft won't improve the game at all -- just the opposite. Without a draft, the best prospects will mostly be on a few wealthier teams.

I can't see how baseball -- or any other pro sport -- has been hurt by an amateur draft. What makes no sense to me is to have a draft for American players but not for foreigners in baseball. When Dirk Nowitzky and Steve Nash and Yao Ming entered the NBA, it was by way of the draft. That's just how Latin players should be chosen in MLB.

"With some rare athletes you can be fairly certain of their stardom from the time they hit puberty.. if Inoa really is that kind of guy than the money seems worth it."

Exactly -- just like Todd Van Poppel. A can't miss pitching prospect.

Or maybe even Jose Pett...

It would seem to me that international FAs are frequently a bargain. If $1-2 million is the current going rate for top guys, guys that could be easily Top 5 picks in the amateur draft and be signing bonuses twice as large...

Inoa is referred to as a "once-a-decade" pitcher in this article.

I have no idea if this kid is any good, and I'm skeptical he'll amount to anything, but it's nice to see the A's getting agressive in acquiring international talent again.

Why? Just so a few players (very few, of course) can eke out a few more dollars out of an eager bidder?

Getting rid of the draft won't improve the game at all -- just the opposite. Without a draft, the best prospects will mostly be on a few wealthier teams.

1. I don't know why you think it would be a few players only. I think it would help almost everyone actually.

2. I also want this done in concert with massive revenue sharing.

I sure do hope this winds up happening.

The current record holder for a non-Cuban signing bonus from Latin America is Wily Mo Pena, who in April, 1999 signed a $2.44 million bonus as part of a major league contract with the Yankees. Pena was 17 years old at the time, and Major League Basbeall voided his original contract that he signed with the Mets the previous year. In 2001, the Dodgers gave Joel Guzman $2.25 million, the current record for a 16-year-old signed during the international signing period.

Hmmm...that's not exactly an encouraging precedent.

So where would Inoa have been picked if he had been eligible for the draft?

Let's say he would have been the 10th pick. Last year's 10th pick (Bumgarner) got a $2 million signing bonus, which seems pretty close to his slotting bonus. If the A's sign Inoa for $2.5 million, and he's the quality of a 10th overall pick, they'd basically be paying $2.5 million for access to the #10 draft pick.

Using $2.14 million per marginal win, a couple years ago Nate Silver valued picks 8 through 15 as being worth $12.6 million each in gross present value. Inoa would seem to be steal at $4.5 million, then, if he's really of #10 pick quality. Silver's study even showed picks at the end of the first round being worth over $4 million in gross present value.

How much are the non-arb years of a top-notch pitcher worth?

What is the likelihood of him turning into a top-notch pitcher?

In my book, it's a good gamble.

It's nice to see Beane take another page out of the Kenny Williams book and drop minor money on international gambles rather than waste money on high priced mediocrities. :)

4 million? That's half a year of Esteban Loiza. do it!

I'm shocked, shocked that the Yanks are going after a hard throwing righty. There was a list of big time international free agents on ESPN.com right after the draft, and obviously the Yanks were in on a few. When do they all sign by?

It's nice to see Beane take another page out of the Kenny Williams book and drop minor money on international gambles rather than waste money on high priced mediocrities. :)

Luckily for Kenny, he doesn't have to make that choice with his $121 million payroll:

Thome: $15.7M
Buehrle: $14M
Konerko: $12M
Cabrera: $10M
Uribe: $4.5M

That's more than the whole A's payroll this year...

This sort of contradicts the ESPN story yesterday about Inoa, which described a "three-horse race" between Oakland, Cincinatti, and the Rangers. The story even claimed that a few teams had dangled a major league contract, but Inoa isn't biting on that.
Link: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3457855

Danny, I was joking. You point is completely right. However, I would ask whether the choice to mischaracterize the actual cost of Thome was intentional or unintentional?

After all, the way you are counting makes no more sense than me counting the entire $22 million this year and proclaiming that the Sox are paying Thome $-6.3 million this year.

Unintentional, X, I just grabbed it from USA Today. Cots says they're getting $7 million from the Phillies for Thome this year, plus $1.5 million from the Angels for Cabrera. That would leave the Sox paying those 5 guys very nearly the same amount ($47.7M) as the A's payroll ($48.0M).

And, yeah, I got that you were joking and should have said something to make that clear.

Stupid question - why would Inoa not bite on a major-league contract? What am I missing?

Stupid question - why would Inoa not bite on a major-league contract? What am I missing?

Maybe it would involve taking less money?

Stupid question - why would Inoa not bite on a major-league contract? What am I missing?

Because forcing him onto a major league roster before he's 20 years old might not be the best idea for his own development?

Well, like I said, it was stupid question.

"Let's say he would have been the 10th pick. Last year's 10th pick (Bumgarner) got a $2 million signing bonus, which seems pretty close to his slotting bonus. If the A's sign Inoa for $2.5 million, and he's the quality of a 10th overall pick, they'd basically be paying $2.5 million for access to the #10 draft pick."

The article says the A's are talking about $4.5 million, not $2.5 million. There goes the bargain theory.

Regardless of Inoa's god-given talents, being a 16-year-old pitcher, he comes with a huge risk of total failure. The guy San Francisco picked at #10 in 2007, Madison Bumgarner, was a high school pitcher. Presumably, he's two years older and less likely to be a bust (for that reason). But Bumgarner still has a lot of risks.

I would think that, assuming the market is rational, the lower the risk (at an equal level of talent) the higher the signing bonus. In other words, teams should discount talent if more risk comes along with it.

As such, Inoa must be thought of as someone who has much more talent than Bumgarner -- twice the bonus at higher risk level -- or the draft system (for the most talented players) suppresses the bonuses substantially. I think it pretty obviously does the latter, as 30 teams (as opposed to one) could bid for the services of any given international free agent. However, part of it is likely the former as well.

The only real leverage domestic free agents have, when drafted, is to say, "No, I'll play college ball, instead."* That is what Barry Bonds did when the Giants drafted him out of high school and offered him something like $100,000 (maybe a bit more). He went to ASU for a few years and then when Pittsburgh drafted him he agreed to a much higher signing bonus.

What I think would be fairer to the players than the current scheme, yet not exclude the lowest revenue ballclubs from acquiring the most talented amateur free agents, would be to have a guaranteed slotting system for signing bonuses, much like the NBA has. If a guy gets drafted by a lower revenue team, they would have to pay him a fair amount, based on where he was picked in the draft. He wouldn't have to sign, but holding out would do him no good. The only real losers in that kind of scheme are the agents. They used to have a lot of power in the NBA and now have almost none. I don't see that as a bad thing at all.

* JD Drew is the only star player I have ever heard of who played for an independent league team, instead, holding out from the Phillies.

Well, like I said, it was stupid question.

I don't think it's stupid. An MLB contract would be his quickest path to free agency.

The article says the A's are talking about $4.5 million, not $2.5 million. There goes the bargain theory.

I meant that the A's would be paying $2.5M for the #10 pick, which would give them the privilege of paying him a $2M signing bonus. As I said in the paragraph you didn't quote, he'd be a steal at $4.5M if he's of that quality.

* JD Drew is the only star player I have ever heard of who played for an independent league team, instead, holding out from the Phillies.

It is a newer practice, hence fewer established stars and more younger big leaguers/star prospects have done it. Max Scherzer, Stephen Drew, Jered Weaver, and Luke Hochevar have all done it.
Weaver, Drew and Scherzer wound up signing with their drafting team before the next draft but Hochevar did was Drew #1 did and reentered the draft and were drafted again, this time from the Indy Leagues.
Wade Townsend, who is looking like a bust, turned down the Orioles as a Jr. and went back to school as a student only and was (over)drafted in the first round again the next year.

Tim Bascom, whose name doesn't really belong with those above, also turned a team down and reentered the draft, and was picked, after being an indy leaguer

Wouldn't it be a shame if a team in the A's division, with a big budget and no first round picks in the last 2 years to sign swooped in and outbid everybody?

Come on Angels, wake up! The farm system is dry.

2. I also want this done in concert with massive revenue sharing.

We already have this.

I just hope that if they sign him we don't havea repeat of Prieto or Van Poppel.

BG, the odds are pretty good (70-80%?) with a 16 year old pitcher that he will be a bust -- either he gets hurt or he simply doesn't have the goods or both. As such, I would not get my hopes up over this guy or over any one prospect. That's why you need 10 young prospects to filter through the system and hope one or two will become good major leaguers, while the others fade away or become Cuban dictators.