Yoan Moncada was declared a free agent yesterday by MLB. The news set of a chain of fevered speculation, which was already at a near-fevered pitch, regarding what team may end up signing him and for how much. In case you are dropping by from another planet, Yoan Moncada is a 19 year old baseball player from Cuba who has already played a couple of seasons for what I gather is the Cuban equivalent on major league baseball. He has mostly played 2B but can also apparently play SS, 3B and OF. The only one of those positions where he does not seem to be a fit longterm is SS. Moncada is not that imposing from a size standpoint going 5'11"-6'0" and about 200 lbs. His body is mature for his age. What he does have that is imposing is tools, tools and more tools. Arm, speed, hit, power. Yeah, he rates at least a 60 in all of those categories and a 70 in most.
The early frontrunners to sign him are the usual suspects, Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers. What adds to the intrigue is the fact that Moncada is classified as an international amateur FA rather than a MLB FA. This means that he is subject to MLB's international bonus pool limits and penalties. He cannot be signed to a MLB deal which means all or most of the money will have to be paid out upfront rather than spread out over multiple seasons. He would then be subject to the same roster/arbitration/FA rules as any other baseball prospect. Current estimates of how big of a signing bonus Moncada will receive range from $30-$40 M. Since almost all of that total would be in excess of any team's bonus pool limit, the penalty, payable to MLB, would be essentially 100% or an additional $30-40 M for a grant total cost of $60-80 M. 100% of the penalty has to be paid within 12 months while the bonus might be payable over 3 years, but I have not been able to confirm from any reliable source I have seen.
Is Moncada worth that kind of upfront investment? He definitely does appear to be a wonderfully gifted ballplayer and may well be a future franchise type player. Think Robinson Cano with more speed. I'm going to nitpick a bit and say I am not overwhelmed by his body type when I see videos of him. To me he already looks like he's packing some extra pounds, which is not necessarily a deal killer, but also not what you ideally want to see in a 19 year old. I have not read of any scout who thinks he can play SS. His main position seems to be 2B with talk of him maybe moving to 3B or to the OF to take advantage of his speed. He may be a good enough offensive player that it doesn't matter where he ends up playing, but again, you really want that type of an investment to be for a special player which should include the ability to play a premium position.
Where do the Giants fit into all this? They are reportedly one of the teams that has held at least 1 private workout with Moncada. BA reported a rumor that Giants ownership was getting itchy watching other teams sign Cuban talent and is pushing to make a major investment in the Cuban market. Larry Baer addressed this in an Q/A with the Bay Area Sports Guy and insisted that team construction remains a collaborative effort between ownership and baseball management specifically mentioning Brian Sabean, Bobby Evans, Dick Tidrow and John Barr. Baer denied that ownership was putting on any extra pressure to sign Cuban players. Then, Bobby Evans went on KNBR and while saying the Giants are seriously interested in Moncada, pointed out that there are problems with the upfront bonus money and the timing of where this falls on Moncada's age timeline. He is 19 now. Assuming he is essentially MLB ready now, the Giants would be paying a premium for his age 19-25 seasons only to see him become a FA just as he enters his prime years. Most scouting reports I have read seem to think he would need 1-2 years in the minors, which would suggest he is not ready to provide premium on-field performance directly out of the gate.
The Giants do seem to be serious about scouting and making offers for some of these expensive free agents, so I assume they have the money to make a deal if they really think it's the right player and the right situation. Putting all the available information together, though, I do not expect them to sign Moncada. There are just too many big sharks in the pool going after one target. One of them is going to blow up the market and make an outrageous offer that the Giants, or any other team, would be foolish to top. As to where he goes, you have to assume the usual suspects, Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers. I would add the D'Backs and ChiSox who also have been active in the Cuban market and have shown a surprising willingness to go big with their offers.
There are a couple of other Cuban players who will be coming on the market any day, both also second basemen. One is Hector Olivera a 31 year old veteran who has an impressive physique in videos I've seen as well as impressive batting lines from Cuba. He did not play in 2013 and his 2014 line was not up to his pre-2013 standards, though. The other is Andy Ibanez who I have not seen much discussion of except that he also comes under international amateur free agent rules like Moncada and is also expected to draw a large bonus that will go well into penalty territory.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks Dr. B-Terrific analysis!
ReplyDeleteThanks DrB. Yep, I can't see the Giants making the top bid on this one. Just doesn't seem their style. While it would be great to have a top-10 prospect in the minors, just seems to be too expensive.
ReplyDeleteSupposedly he's comparable to Corey Seager in terms of skills, who is a top 10 prospect. Well, looking back at the 2012 draft where he was drafted #18, I'm pretty sure he'd be a top 5 pick if the draft was redone. So this begs the question, if some compare Moncada to Seager, why are we able to judge the skills of Moncada now but weren't able to judge the skills of Seager when he was drafted? What makes people so certain about Moncada's skill set? With international FAs, people seem so adamant/confident about slotting them into a top 50 list but with the draft there's more uncertainty. Is it just because Moncada has played internationally? This all raises questions for me.
Alan
Well, Moncada does seem like a very talented player. On the other hand, maybe it's just me, but there also seems to be more than just a whiff of hype and irrational exuberance in the air on this one.
DeleteIf the Giants are willing to bust their budget, and if Shields price has come down to 3 years, I think I'd rather see them sign him. Doubt that will happen either because if it did, somebody would have to be traded or released, and that is not the Giants Way either.
The Giants Way, post Rowan/Zito, has been to sign mainly short-term (<3yr) contracts and pay well and long-term to retain their own stars (Pablo excepted). So far, a darn good track record I would say.
ReplyDeleteBidding wars are not in Charles "The Duck" Johnson's or Sabes' comfort zone, obviously. The Giants were early (see 1960s) and surprisingly only recently again engaged in the international game. The Cubans seem to be beyond their risk and bidding appetite. Must agree with DocB, I just don't see them diving in on Moncada, Olivera, Ibanez, et al.
As a fan I hate seeing them miss out on Cuban after Cuban and seeing said player perform across the bay or down south. That said if the Giants go big, I want them to jump in the deep end for top tier starting pitching. So damn the Cubans, I'm investing in pitching.
Cuban after Cuban: I don't remember much about Cespedes, an uneven performer who has been traded twice now, or Puig. The only Cuban other than these who has performed significantly is Abreu. The Giants' Carbonell, the Dodgers' Guerrero, Rusney Castillo, Yasmany Tomas-- none of these guys, so far as I know, has proved himself as a prize performer, nor has Yoan Lopez. I have the feeling that the hype has foamed to the top, like the head on shaken beer, but that the quality of what's underneath remains guesswork.
DeleteAgain, Moncada seems like a very talented player, but I was watching MLB TV this morning and they were saying he will probably start out in High A ball. If that is true, then he is far from a sure thing. Even if he starts higher, there is not such thing as a can't miss prospect. Remember who the top MLB ready prospects were last year at this time? Jurickson Profar, Javier Baez, Gregory Polanco, Oscar Tavares.
DeleteFor $95 million the Red Sox got the "best" FA hitter and pretty fair fielder at a key position for 5 years, age 28 through 32. Most don't think it was a good contract, because, well, because a lot of reasons.
ReplyDeleteFor $80 million plus whatever he gets paid per year to actually play, you get Moncada in the ML for ages 21-25, learning years, not prime.
Those 5 years will cost a good bit more than Sandoval's.
There is upside, maybe a lot. There is also downside. I think money can be better spent. Next year.
I wanted Tomas but when that deal finally went down it looks like he was filled with much more hype than what the scouts ended up thinking he was really worth. When it comes to Moncada it just does not make sense to pay him 20 million a year when he is not even ready for the show. If he does do well, which you sure hope happens, by year 3 his arbitration years are going to be expensive which will make this deal even more crazy.
ReplyDeleteInstead of getting a guy like Moncada I would much rather get a bunch of international guys like Carbonell, Edie, G. Cabrera, etc. You have a good chance one will pan out to be a solid player and you didn't spend tens of millions on one player. I think Angel Villalona left a bad taste in the Giants mouth and aren't quick to set the market. They would rather wait and see how the market develops. They had a number in their heads for Tomas and he went for more than what they were willing to pay. The same will be true for Moncada. I think they will be players if they could get him for under $60M total. Chances are he will go for close to $80M total.
ReplyDeleteGetting more guys, each with a small chance of making the big leagues does not increase the odds that one of them will be a good player. If that was the case, more money and energy would be spent in places where guys can be gotten for lower prices, but do you see that happening? No, because 1 chance in 10 is always better odds than 1/50 plus 1/50 plus 1/50.
DeleteHow do you know the odds are 1/50 though? What if they are actually better than that? 1/20? 1/15?
DeleteHere's what one GM, Sandy Alderson had to say about this subject: "From my standpoint, it is a little like the stock market. Do you want to go all in on Shake Shack? Or, do you want to invest in a mutual fund that gives you a little more diversity…."
DeleteI'll take Ian Happ at slightly above slot and save some money for the free agent class next off season.
ReplyDeleteGood point. Ian Happ is a toolsy college player who also plays 2B/OF.
DeleteThat was a good analysis of the situation, thank you. It should be noted that you did not point out that this is the Giant’s opportunity to get a top 10 draft prospect without having a team that is in massive rebuild mode. This is a once in a quarter century opportunity that will cost only what the Giants have plenty of (thanks to Mr. Johnson). This is an opportunity to get a player that is the surest bet (by a wide margin) to be an all-star caliber player for 5 years. Additionally, there will be no loss of a draft pick the way there will be next year when all those great pitchers are free agents go on the market.
ReplyDeleteThe Giants have defied the odds 3 of the last 5 years, something very hard to do (given their level of talent) and if they wish to keep the odds in their favor they need to acquire talent like this guy has. That is just the way the draft system works. This is an opportunity for the Giant’s to increase the odds that they will make the playoffs in the future (and lessen their opponent’s odds). The Dodgers have won the division the last 2 years and are highly likely to do so again, so that leaves the Giants fighting maybe 5 other teams for 2 spots to be in a low odds position (#5/6 vs #1). Sure, the chance of getting in the playoffs is good and the Giants won last year, but do you want to count on the other manager making a bad decision every year? Is this one guy going to make the difference between the division and the wildcard? Sure, especially when the Giants only produce average players from their system and only spend money on average players.
Bottom line, will the Giants sign Moncada? Nope, because ownership values two things, what players have done for them and being financially sound. In the short term, that has been a winning strategy, but in the long term….
No, it is actually not an opportunity to get a top 10 draft prospect. It is an opportunity to get a high priced FA who you have to pay the full price upfront except he isn't ready to play like high priced FA yet.
DeleteSuppose it were an opportunity for a top-10 draft prospect. What's the proportion of those who have been great successes as opposed to those who haven't? Let's say for the sake of argument that getting Moncada for six years is $110M, including $80M in bonus and CBT, and the rest in MLB salary. That would call for his being worth 15 to 20 WAR. What proportion of top-10 or for that matter, top-5 draft picks produce that? Bryce Harper should top 15 fWAR but may not get to 20, as the most highly touted rookie position player in recent memory. Would it be fair to surmise that few of the other top-10 picks or top-5 picks have done as well?
DeleteI don't want to niggle with these numbers, and I think don't need to in order to make my point about highly hyped, largely untested players, and the likelihood of their being impact players worth a huge outlay. 22 might recall that the financial exposure for a top-10 draft pick is vastly less than the likely exposure here. (That, I take it, restates DrB's apt comparison of Moncada to an FA financially, while he's effectively a draft pick in terms of what remains unknown.)
And what does 22 mean by supposing that the Giants spend money only on average players and produce only average players from their system? If the statement means that the team consists of only average players, many home-grown and all of them salaried employees of the Giants, it's so prima facie eccentric (here a euphemism for "false") that I assume 22 means something else. What?
DeleteI think 22 was trying to say that the the Giants do not get many chances to draft in the top 10 because of their success, which is true. On the other hand, I've seen quite a few comments posted on, ahem, another site to the effect that the Giants farm system "desperately" needs a top 10 prospect. While it would be nice to have another prospect like that(I consider Tyler Beede to be a top 10 quality prospect even though the Giants got him at #14), the system does not desperately need anything. Again, it does not have as much MLB ready impact as some systems, it is deep in younger prospects with high ceiling potential.
DeleteMy question, if you sign him for 40 plus the 40 million tax, how does that affect the luxury tax. I would presume we would only be on the hook for the 40 million, not the 40 million in tax as well. Spread out over the 6 years of team control that roughly would be 6.8 million a year against the cap not counting his salary. When you watch video of this kid it is hard to not like what you see. He has terrific bat speed and does have the body type of a linebacker. He sure would fill a large hole at 3B if he can hit MLB pitching. I keep going back and forth on this deal, he looks great on video and has a ripped physique but can he hit a curveball and will he make it to the majors fast or will he have to spend a year or more in the minors. The Giants have tons of money and the 6.8 against the cap is not rediculous, I think it's worth the roll of the dice and I really would hate to see him hitting HRs out of the OKC Dodgers stadium here in a couple of months, well, unless he was wearing a River Cats uni right before a call up to the show.
ReplyDeleteThe signing bonus does not count against the Luxury Tax. The only penalty is the tax on the overage on the international bonus pool which doubles the signing bonus cost for all practical purposes. I know somebody came on here and said the signing bonus can be paid out in 3 years, with only the tax payable within 1 year, but I also read somewhere yesterday that the full bonus has to be paid in 1 month. No matter how you cut it, it's a whole lot of upfront, lump-sum caishish.
Delete