Your Team’s New Trade Asset

For fans of Carlos Marmol, it’s been a confusing few days, even beyond the usual confusion baseline. On Tuesday, Marmol was shipped from the Cubs to the Dodgers. On Wednesday, there were initial reports the Dodgers were cutting ties, but now it’s clear they simply intend to send him to the minor leagues for a little while, in theory to get him “straightened out.” Marmol, at some point, should pitch for the Dodgers, and they have more interest in him than they had in the now-departed Matt Guerrier. Cynics will note that the solution to an inconsistent Brandon League isn’t adding another one, but if the odds are X% that League turns it around, the odds are greater that one of League and Marmol turns it around.

Of course, Marmol was just designated for assignment. There’s not a lot there, beyond the strikeouts, the frequency of which is plummeting. Since 2011, among pitchers with at least 150 innings, Marmol ranks 14th-worst in OBP allowed, at .355. He’s hanging around the likes of Dallas Keuchel and Derek Lowe and Edinson Volquez, and though Marmol generally limits batting and slugging, his career isn’t on the way up. Marmol, probably, can be useful, but since 2011 he has a 105 FIP-. Guerrier has a 109 FIP-. Lots of relievers can be useful and Marmol isn’t going to pitch the Dodgers into first place.

As far as this trade is concerned, it’s Marmol who’ll draw most of the attention. Marmol is a popular guy to discuss. But it seems clear to me the Dodgers don’t value him all that highly, what with the sending him right to the minors and all. What interests me more than the players is the money involved. According to reports, the Cubs will save something like $0.5 million, while the Dodgers will add something like $0.5 million. But the Dodgers also get the Cubs’ fourth international signing bonus slot, worth just about $0.21 million. It seems to me this is what the trade’s really about, and this is a new thing. As of Tuesday, there are new kinds of trades.

Tuesday was July 2, which meant the beginning of the new international signing period. For the first time, teams were allowed different amounts of money to spend, according to a slotting system shown here. Money from these pools can be traded between teams, but you can’t just trade a certain amount of dollars — teams are allowed to trade specific slot values. The Cubs basically traded the Dodgers slot number 92, worth $0.21 million. They did so in exchange for immediate salary relief.

There were three trades on Tuesday that involved international signing money, with the Cubs in on all of them. They gave up some money in their trade with the Dodgers, but they added to their pool by trading with both the Astros and the Orioles. To quickly recap:

Cubs <—> Orioles
Orioles get Scott Feldman, Steve Clevenger. Cubs get Jake Arrieta, Pedro Strop, $0.388 million for international spending.

Cubs <—> Astros
Astros get Ronald Torreyes. Cubs get $0.785 million for international spending.

Cubs <—> Dodgers
Dodgers get Carlos Marmol, cash considerations, $0.21 million for international spending. Cubs get Matt Guerrier.

They’re three different kinds of deals. In one, bonus money was given up to offset a big contract. In another, bonus money was picked up for a prospect. In the last, bonus money was picked up effectively as a prospect substitute. But what they all have in common is that teams exchanged bonus pool money, which we hadn’t before seen. Not that people didn’t know it was coming.

This is something available to all teams — if they like, they can try to add to their pools, and if they like, they can instead give it up. My understanding is that you can elect to trade away your entire pool. However, you can only add another 50%, which is to say, if you go in with $3 million, you’re capped at $4.5 million. If you go in with $2 million, you’re capped at $3 million. It’s going to take a little while for teams to completely figure out what they’re dealing with, but what we’re seeing now is a market being set. How much is this money worth? We have more of an idea today than we did on Monday.

We know, first of all, that a dollar isn’t a dollar. International signing money is valuable, specifically because it’s limited, and because there are penalties for over-spending. Even if you have a team that doesn’t intend to be internationally active, just because they don’t care about their money doesn’t mean other teams don’t. Other teams will want those slot values, creating demand. The Astros, for example, aren’t going to make any big international splashes, but they didn’t give their money away to the Cubs. They got a decent player in return.

The most difficult trade to analyze is the Feldman move, just because of the number of pieces involved. The Cubs came away with Arrieta, Strop, some millions in salary relief, and international spending money. Even without the spending money, it wouldn’t have been that bad of a trade. There’s value in salary relief, and there’s potential value in Arrieta, perhaps as a reliever. But the spending money basically takes the place of a low-level prospect.

The other moves are simpler. The Cubs directly exchanged Torreyes for $0.785 million getting added to their bonus pool. We can assume that Torreyes is valued at more than that, but we can’t put a dollar figure on him. He’s 20, making him one of the very youngest players in the Double-A Southern League. He’s a little second baseman with more walks than strikeouts, and barely any power to speak of. Torreyes hasn’t ranked on any top-10 prospect lists, but there’s potential in a young guy holding his own at an advanced level, and there’s more certainty in Torreyes than there is in international signings. Torreyes is only two levels away from the majors. He has value in a system.

And then there’s the last one. If you just cancel out Guerrier and Marmol, you’re left with an exchange of about $0.5 million for about $0.21 million of international spending money. It’s probably not going to get much clearer than this, with an international spending dollar being worth a little more than two ordinary dollars. In reality it’s more complicated than that, and we can learn only so much from how two of 30 teams value these resources at this time, but there’s all your necessary evidence that it’s not cash for equivalent cash. The Dodgers are taking on more salary than the boost to their bonus pool. For the Cubs, it’s the opposite. Though the Cubs clearly have prioritized international activity, those dollars have a price, even to them.

Clearly, international spending money is more valuable than regular money. This is because one can spend internationally only to a point, and those dollars are limited. This much, we could’ve guessed. But the difference in value isn’t extreme, because, ultimately, a lot of the time you’re talking about talented 16-year-olds who are as far from the majors as you can get while at least having a contract. The majority of the players signed during this period won’t go on to achieve much, since there’s a high flameout rate, and because of the risk this money isn’t a team’s most valuable asset. It’s just an asset, that we’re going to see get involved in a number of moves. There are trades of big-leaguers, and there are trades of prospects. If you want, you can think of these as trades of sub-prospects, faceless players who are a long ways away. When you spend internationally, you’re spending for the long term. But it’s critically important to look out for the long term, so this money won’t be exchanged without careful consideration.

Print This Post

Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.

17 Responses to “Your Team’s New Trade Asset”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. One point of confusion for me–when you say the Cubs get .785 million in international spending money, are they actually receiving .785 million in cash from the Astros or are they just obtaining the right to spend .785 million of their own money?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Dr_Caligari says:

      I believe that it was that they got 2 international spending slots… so the right to spend their own money is what it looks like.

      +5 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Asterisk says:

        What an amazing idea by Bud Selig, former used cars salesman and accomplished student (by which I mean a B.A. in American History). Forget doing anything to even out the vastly different sizes in payroll across the league that have historically served as the reason behind the difference between big, successful teams and the also-rans. Instead, limit spending in the draft and international signings, the one spot where the poorer, smarter, scouting-savvy teams can choose to spend what little they have for value returns.

        +18 Vote -1 Vote +1

        • GLS says:

          Competitive balance has zero to do with this. The draft pool and IFA signing limits are all about limiting spending on the processes that allocate amateur talent into the game, and also reducing the leverage of unproven amateur players. Baseball is a cartel and this is how it operates. The assumption, obviously, is that if a player has the talent to make it in the major leagues, he’ll find his way there one way or the other.

          +5 Vote -1 Vote +1

        • Dave S says:

          Blaming Bud Selig for everything you don’t like in baseball. What a new concept!

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • Corey says:

          I disagree with this. All teams are involved internationally now and with no caps on spending, large market teams will start to outbid the low market teams for the best players (or drive up the price high enough that they will allocate money away from the major league team)

          This setup helps competitive balance by providing an advantage to unsuccessful teams. They can spend more on prospects or use that slot to acquire prospects/major leaguers.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • NeilS says:

          Corey – except that you’ve made that up and it never actually played out that way.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

      • I think this is accurate.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. George says:

    Good post. One point of disagreement. You say, “My understanding is that you can elect to trade away your entire pool.” My understanding is that teams can only trade away their slots, but they have $700,000 to spend that is not associated with those slots. I don’t think teams can trade that $700,000.

    +12 Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. Sparkles Peterson says:

    Reports in LA are saying the trade adds “about $500k” to the Dodgers’ payroll. I thought the Cubs were paying approximately $2 million of the approximately $4.9 million that should still be owed to Marmol. Guerrier should be due about $1.875 million. That’s a difference of roughly $1 million. Wonder where the final figures are going to fall.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Duder says:

      $1 million yearly salary / 2 = $500,000 actually paid since season is half over…not sure if that’s what they are referring to, but could be an explanation

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. Ruki Motomiya says:

    And yet you can’t trade draft picks…

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. chuckb says:

    Where are the gif’s? Marmol should have been a treasure trove!

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. Johnny Ringo says:

    I might be crazy, but I seem to think Arrieta still has value as a starter. A couple of adjustments and he could be a beast of a pitcher.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. Gabriel Syme says:

    an international spending dollar being worth a little more than two ordinary dollars.

    Not quite. The Dodgers are acquiring the right to spend $0.21m for $0.5m. They will actually spend $0.71m in order to pay international free agents the $0.21m; so the value of an IFA dollar is in fact closer to 3.5 “ordinary” dollars.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>