GatewayRedbirds.com

The Cardinals haven't been involved in the markets that allow more money to be spent such as Cuban defectors and those with a certain number of years in a professional league elsewhere.

phins wrote:The Cardinals haven't been involved in the markets that allow more money to be spent such as Cuban defectors and those with a certain number of years in a professional league elsewhere.

Those numbers did not include Cuban defectors or Japanese league signings.

It looks like their bonus pool was $2,060,600 last year, and they traded for more bonus money in the deal with Colorado (Mitchell Boggs). The Cards probably stayed within the 5% restriction to avoid being limited to $500,000 on any one prospect this year.

I know the Rangers and Cubs made moves to gain additional space, but the Rangers would almost have to have given up something this year if these numbers do not include Japanese or Cuban players. Their pool was even less than the Cardinals.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/internat ... r-2013-14/

The penalties for IFA signings are actually just more fees, there's no loss of draft pick or any other punishment. That's why both the Cubs and Rangers went into that penalty level of spending, the Cubs themselves didn't really net all that much from their trades with slot money(they actually sent money away in one deal). There's been multiple rumors that the Yankees are going to put that approach on steroids this year and spend upwards of 20 million to get whoever they want, because it's only extra cash they pay as a penalty.

For the Cardinals, their low rank is reflective of their low pool number, and their unwillingness to pay the additional fees/fines for going above it. Given how inefficient the IFA market is outside the Cuban and Japanese defectors, that's not really a bad decision.

So Baseball America is incorrect in stating that over 5% and you can't sign a guy for more than $500,000 the following year?

http://www.baseballamerica.com/internat ... nal-draft/

I don't believe anyone mentioned losing picks that I can see...

phins wrote:So Baseball America is incorrect in stating that over 5% and you can't sign a guy for more than $500,000 the following year?

http://www.baseballamerica.com/internat ... nal-draft/

I don't believe anyone mentioned losing picks that I can see...

Oh, that's correct too, but you don't lose any of your pool, so you can just go quality one year and quantity the next if you feel strongly about a particular IFA class.

If you go too far over, you lose your first round pick the following year, and a lot of pool money. Go even more past a certain amount overslot and you lose your first and second round picks the next year, which is a huge chunk of your pool money. If you go more than 15% over you lose your first and second round pick for the next two years, which is crippling.

Not being able to go over $500K on a player means essentially you are losing a first-round pick anyway. All the top kids go for more than that.

So if you're going to go over, you have to be sure that you're in a really awesome year, talent-wise, and you've got to go out and land like the #1, #3, #8, #10 guys, not just land the #2 guy and a bunch of guys in the #20-40 range. You need to make it count with Sano type toolsets.

Link above doesn't mention losing any picks for signing international guys.

Just a tax and a cap on players you can sign.

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:

phins wrote:So Baseball America is incorrect in stating that over 5% and you can't sign a guy for more than $500,000 the following year?

http://www.baseballamerica.com/internat ... nal-draft/

I don't believe anyone mentioned losing picks that I can see...

Oh, that's correct too, but you don't lose any of your pool, so you can just go quality one year and quality the next if you feel strongly about a particular IFA class.

Sounds like we're on the same page. The Cubs will have to keep it to $500,000 or under this year, which is still easy to sign guys outside of the toolshed types.

The Cards do not seem to be quite as invested, and as you say, the Cards seem to prefer focusing on other avenues with better rates of return.

phins wrote:Link above doesn't mention losing any picks for signing international guys.

Edit.

Ah. Durr. I see. That was going to be the deal if there was a draft.