It makes sense to invest in LA players, but it’s more risky than usual because there are even more unknowns than with draftable (did I make the word up?) prospects.

The previous highest bonuses for a LA player were Wily Mo Pena and Joel Guzman, both of whom have been busts. Being the top prospect upon signing is not much of a guarantee of anything. I’d rather have a lot of good prospects than one great one.

I’d prefer to give $4 million to Inoa who by all accounts is a prospect of the most elite potential with virtually no ceiling, with a high risk of failure than to give money to guys like Bloomquist and Gload.

Come on. Did I say that speding the money on Gload and Bloomquist makes more sense than giving it to Inoa? I also didn’t say that the Royals should spend $4M on magic beans rather than Inoa. What I said was that spending the money on a bunch of Latin prospects makes more sense than betting a lot of money on one guy.

You do realize that is what is being compared, right?

Only by you. Doublestix and I had only compared “insane amounts of money” to L.A. prospects against the amateur draft or by spending that money on multiple L.A. prospects.

you mean like….
HS 1b?

No, I mean like the ind of prospect which has the highest failure rate (by far), and that is 16-17 yo L.A. signees. Their failure rate is much, much higher than HS 1B’s. It’s called a simple cost-benefit analysis.

It isn’t because Latinos lie. It’s because where they live allows them to lie more effectively. Anglo prospects in the U.S. would lie about their age if they could, but they can’t. Even current immigration procedures, it is not so easy for L.A. players to lie about their age anymore, but it is easier than for native born Americans. It is entirely easy for Cubans to lie about their age because there is no way for the U.S. to check or verify their ages. So they always lie. That isn’t because Cubans are liars. It’s because they can.