In what is the most detailed article to date, Joe Strauss offers further insight into the ongoing saga of the Cardinals and Domincan prospect Wagner Mateo. By and large this is an even-handed effort to publish some facts although Strauss is unable, as usual, to refrain from putting his own conotation into the article. These subtle jabs often create a mischaracterization of the facts or at least color the perception of the reader.
Regardless, there’s too much information here for it not to be noted as a valuable resource in understanding the situation.
The Cardinals devoted much of the previous five years laying groundwork for acquiring a player like Mateo for an eye-popping sum of more than $3.1 million.
This is part of the much bally-hooed effort by the Cardinals to increase their presence in DR. While it’s been great in concept, it’s been underwhelming in results to date. Wagner was supposed to represent the coup de grace of their stifled efforts in the country. Many of the “agents” in the DR will only permit the teams who spend top dollar in the country to scout their players. Thus, many writers have indicated that this is going to be a massive setback for the Cardinals who will be back to square one.
I think this is an overstatement at best and just plain wrong at worst. The situation surrounding Mateo indicated nothing of what the Cardinals would do for future prospects. In fact, if anything, the Cardinals have managed to show their intention of spending big $$$ without actually having to spend it this year. While I believe they wanted Mateo in the system, the message of the team being a player in DR prospects isn’t as damaged as many writers like to indicate.
And, oh, Mateo would go through a team physical administered by the team’s medical supervisor, Dr. George Paletta, who has declined to comment on Mateo’s case.
Jab #1: Paletta declines to comment on virtually EVERY cardinal medical issue. Most of the information is delivered second hand from the front office and not from the doctor(s) themselves. This is not abnormal.
Mateo was found to possess 20/200 vision. Even with contact lenses, Mateo’s vision was 20/30, good enough for most professions but considered deficient among major league players. [...] For most of a month, Mateo shuttled between eye specialists in St. Louis, Baltimore and Boston. Specialists at Johns Hopkins and Harvard reached the same conclusion as those in St. Louis: Mateo’s vision could not be improved. [...] Mateo was not deemed a fit for Lasik surgery, according to sources familiar with the club’s medical findings.
So the Cardinals find that Mateo has a severe physical defect with his eyesight at age 16 when the eyes are generally not done deteriorating (early 20s) as is natural for most people with poor eyesight. Furthermore, surgery isn’t an option. I’m struggling to see where the Cardinals have done anything wrong in this situation whatsoever. If they had signed him and this had come out 3 years from now as he struggled in the minors, a torch-and-pitchfork mob would be formed questioning whether the Cardinals were doing their due diligence.
Mateo does not suffer from macular degeneritis as published reports speculated. However, there is an expectation that his uncorrected eyesight will likely erode as he ages. Corrective lenses may allow him to hold onto 20-30 eyesight. But that is no consolation in a sport where a recent study revealed more than 98.5 percent of athletes have 20/20 or better vision, corrected or not.
Strauss doesn’t indicate what recent study he’s talking about (a recent study indicates 98% of people don’t properly cite their sources) but if that’s true, it certainly would indicate a good reason for the Cardinals to be put off by Mateo’s condition.
The Cardinals now refuse to discuss specifics of Mateo’s case while hiding behind the HIPAA statute and bracing for possible litigation.
Jab #2: As someone who has sat through several lectures on HIPAA, the idea that the Cardinals are “hiding” behind it is a negative connotation that’s simply disingenuous. First of all, with the possible chance of being sued, the Cardinals would be fools to be running their mouths now. It would do nothing for their position publicly and could damage their position in court. Second, HIPAA is strict on what can and cannot be discussed with regards to patient’s medical history. It’s prudent, if frustrating, for people in the medical industry to be cautious when releasing information. Again, I fail to see where the Cardinals are acting improperly in this situation.
At the end of the day, the Mateo affair is a tragic one from Wagner’s perspective. It’s an unfortunate one from the Cardinals’ perspective. But it’s not one in which the team has acted in bad faith towards Mateo or their fan base. The Cardinals have struggled thus far to identify prospects from the Carribbean that project toward the majors. This is a failing of their system that is bigger than Mateo and, frankly, more important. The best way for the Cardinals to reap the rewards of the Latin American talent pool is to figure out why their scouting isn’t working down there. When the best prospect they’ve got to show is a reliever (albeit an excellent one), something isn’t working. That’s a harder newspaper story to write, so I expect we’ll read more about Wagner Mateo rather than the Cardinal’s efforts in Latin America as a whole.
Entries (RSS)
I don’t see how the cardinals could be at fault. All players on all teams signing for big money don’t sign until they have complete physicals.
Then there is the option to reduce the bonus or withdraw the contract. Most players get an eye test when being considered for the draft, usually done by the area MLB scout, plus full disclosure for past medical problems are required, if one fails to do this, it is considered fraud.
I think they got hosed, if the agent knew this was a problem, he should have fully disclosed the problem.
I agree, you can’t blame a doctor for not disclosing all medical information, it is against to law for them to do so without a player’s permission. Most do not give permission. This creates an issue for what a team can and cannot disclose, why most info is usually sketchy.
agreed. there’s so much shady dealings with these latin american agents, buscones, or whatever they want to call themselves. hard to discern the truth. it’s a market that produces a lot of mlb players, but it’s not always the big $$$ players that become stars. And I think I’d feel a lot more comfortable building primarily thru the draft.
Two things:
If the Cards wrote it into the contract that they have 90 days to get the physical and Mateo failed it, they will be fine.
Secondly, I’ve often thought that a good strategy in LA would be to sign 10+ $100k bonus kids (both hitters and pitchers) a year. Put them through the academy in the DR and the DSL and then see what you have when they are 18 and you can bring the top to the US and the GCL.
Some of these kids will develop from 16-18, or even 18+ and with more chances to find a star, all of our “eggs” aren’t in one basket.
The article makes it sound as if the Cardinals were unaware that Mateo wore contacts. If true, that does not speak well for their due dillegence.
The Cards also had One (or maybe it was 2) contracts (of players over $100K bonus) voided last year. There wasn´t much info on them. Alone, they meant very little but when combined with MAteo may mean something — or may not!
Nice work Az.
Strauss often times seems to put his little shots on the scouting department. I wonder if they don’t feed him enough inside info to his liking or he is sniping on behalf of someone else in the organization with an ax to grind? At least Stauss’s article was more intelligent than Passan’s “stealing from a blind kid” line.
Strauss did a lot of good leg work here and, for the most part, he’s a good reporter. It’s when he starts interjecting his own perceptions and commentary (which I often disagree with) that I have a problem.
Just the facts, Joe.
Didn’t essentially the same thing happen with Trevor Miller? The only difference being we came to an agreement on a shorter and smaller contract after his physical. I dont remember Strauss complaining after that.
The deal was contingent on the physical exam, and Mateo failed to pass it. Consequently, they terminated the deal. I cannot find what they did wrong.
Bad sports journalists like Passan are to blame; they exggerate things to stimulate controversy and gain more attention.
I do feel sorry for the kid, though.
AZ, I think you’re onto something with your questions about the Cards’ scouting. When you look at BA’s top-prospect lists from the short-season leagues, you see a lot of Latin American players, but none from the Cards’ org.
The big-money guys don’t seem to be doing any better than the ones they get for lower bonuses. It almost seems as if they’re spending money so they get permission from the agents and buscones to spend more money.
On the plus side, the DSL team finished with a .630 winning percentage, so maybe that’s an indication of better talent coming up.
Count me in on being for signing a boatload of the cheaper prospects. A lot of scouting is about knowing the level of competition, which is pretty much meaningless at 16 in a forgein country.
I don´t think the physical exam failure is as black and white as some people are saying. Does less than 20/20 vision constitute an exam failure? IF there is a minimum standard established it does but if not I think the Cards might be on shakey ground. Have they ever signed another player that had less than 20/20 corrective vision (if even for a small amount)? If so, they have set precedent that it is not a contractual voiding event.
I’m with cariocacardinal. The info reported by Strauss raises some eyebrows regarding the due diligence of the Cards scouts before they signed Mateo. Did they know he wore contacts? If so, I’d be shocked if they did not conduct a simple unaided eye test in the DR. If you know a 16 year old kid has 20/200 unaided vision, do you give him a $3 mill bonus BEFORE you find out whether he is a candidate for LASIK and an opinion on the chances his vision will be worse as he ages. Some may argue that they covered their rear end with the contract but that’s not the point. It’s sound business practice to avoid public relations disasters through due diligence, not just monetary losses. Red flags should have been raised about this kid before the signing. At the very least, Luhnow should waited to introduce Mateo to the media and the team at Busch stadium until AFTER the medical exam.
Just some thoughts:
1. I feel bad for Wagner Mateo and hope he can recover both physically and financially. However both currently seem unlikely.
2. If the Cards did anything inappropriately, then I am sure the Giants or some other team, with whom the Cards were in competition, will ignore his sight condition and pay him anywhere close to what the Cards had offered,…..again not likely.
3. To Cariocardinal, I believe the Cards did void one their large dollar signings from last year. I think he was a pitcher named Franco. However that was an age/identity issue, which was a fairly common problem prior to this year when MLB put various checks in place, which is why the second highest rated Latin American signings (a player named Sano) has not occurred.
4. For the reasons suggested above by other commenters, I too agree the Cards would be better off spreading around the bonuses in smaller amounts to a larger number of players….although I like most of us were excited when the Mateo signing occurred (as well as de la Cruz last year).
5. While I really enjoyed AZ’s research and his article, if he is going to call out Strauss (“Jab 1 and Jab 2″), he should be fair and call himself out for “Jab 3″ when he says the Cards Latin American program isn’t working. I submit that since the Cards program only began a few years ago, and the fact that most of those kids are signed agewise as American high school equivilent sophmores, the fact that Sanchez looks like an excellent prospect at the AA level, with Samuel having similar talent if he can find his control, and Solano looks like a major league utility player at a minimum, both at AA, doesn’t indicate that the program is not working, but that it is slowly progressing. All three of those players could see time in St. Louis next year or in 2011 with more guys coming up behind them.
I think the Mateo matter is a detour but I think if the Cards can avoid being blackballed as a result, and can use (spread) the money they did not spend on Mateo for 2-4 (or more) prospects that become age eligible to sign over the remainder of the signing season, and get them into the pipeline their Latin American program will be just fine.
I think it’s fair to say that without actually seeing what the contract says about the circumstances under which it could be voided, it’s speculation about whether the Cards could be liable for anything.
For example, it could very well be the case that all Mateo signed was a term sheet that was subject to the due diligence the Cards performed about his eyesight. As well, the contract could be voided upon the Cards “reasonable discretion” after evaluating health-related information.
And there can be no legal precedent established by previously signing another player with less than 20/20 vision.
Concerning “due diligence,” I believe I read somewhere that physical exams with Latin players can only be done after signing an agreement. With drafted American players, the physical is done before an agreement is actually signed, as occurred with Shelby Miller. If this is correct, then only so much due diligence can be done before signing a contract.
Also, on the potential for the Cards being blackballed, I don’t see it. If an agent has a perfectly healthy kid available, why would they turn down more money from the Cards than they would get from another team? If the kid is not healthy and the agent keeps them away from the Cards, so much the better. In any case, it’s really a crapshoot signing anyone at age 16. Remember how many top high-school 18-year old signees never make the majors.
I’ll chime in again on my Latin American scouting strategy option 2.
2) Sign all the best defensive infielders (all mostly show at SS) at 16 and at least a few of them will develop into hitters.
Sign all the speediest outfielders at 100k and you are bound to find one or two who can hit in the next three years.
I know this is super difficult as the Cards don’t have the kind of scouting infrastructure in place in LA to dig up that many players, but I feel like this would be a great goal to shoot for.
Perhaps Mateo’s agent’s lawsuit will be based on a claim that his client’s vision issues were caused by the “eye popping sum of more than $3.1 million” that the Cardinals threw at him.
Otherwise, I don’t see* that they did anything wrong.
* Full disclosure, my vision isn’t great either.
the cardinals like to have their releases proclaiming their increased spending in latin america, but now their most expensive signing is voided b/c his vision isn’t 20/20 and they also voided the contract on their 2nd biggest signing last year. seems like a lot of fluff and no substance in this latin spending. the worst part is this money probably won’t go to any other signings at this point.
I really like Jeff Roman’s strategy.
To FGC: I don’t think the fact that the fact that the pitcher, Franco’s, contract was voided due to age/identity, when that was routinely happening to a number of teams and when they spent alot (about $1 million) on 3b de la Cruz, equates to “alot of fluff and no substance”. The problem this year is due to the fact that they put all their money into one player. I highly doubt that they contracted to pay him $3.1 million so that they could create fluff and then void the contract because of his eye problems. Again, and I repeat myself, let’s see if anyone is willing to spend very much to sign Mateo, when the $3.1 million was what was necessary to outbid the Giants and other teams in July.
I have no idea if there are any other prospects who recently or in the next few months turn 16 years old and who have talent, but there usually are.
Has to be more to it than this, if it was just a simple vision problem, couldn’t they have renegotiated the amount, but disclosing any thing that could further damage his career could be a lawsuit.
I also just don’t understand giving 3M+ to a 16 year old, makes no sense to me.
I thought HIPAA only applied to U.S. citizens, if that is the case, then disclosing anything about Mateo’s case wouldn’t be in violation.
I agree that the Cardinals didn’t do anything wrong and I also think voiding the contract will help rather than hurt them in subsequent years. One of the bad things about the Mateo situation is that this one big signing distracted them from pursuing other Dominican talent this year. If an “agent” doesn’t deal with us because he knows there’s a fatal flaw in his “client” that can only help us avoid being distracted again. We’ve got good money to spend on players who might really be worth it and an “agent” who knows his client is healthy won’t turn it down.