Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

Stephen Drew / Draft Compensation Question

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 amjgt

amjgt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 526 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 02:27 PM

What happens if Stephen Drew is a FA on June 5th (the date of the MLB draft)?

Does compensation move to the 2015 draft? If so, does our (or anyone's) top 10 protection apply to 2015 even if we move outside the top 10 picks?

Did MLB even bother to consider such a scenario?

#2 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,763 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 03:06 PM

What happens if Stephen Drew is a FA on June 5th (the date of the MLB draft)?

Does compensation move to the 2015 draft? If so, does our (or anyone's) top 10 protection apply to 2015 even if we move outside the top 10 picks?

Did MLB even bother to consider such a scenario?


If he signs after the 2014 draft the draft pick compensation just goes way. The team signing him won't have to surrender any 2015 picks.

#3 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,659 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 05:14 PM

I honestly think they should amend the rules to allow players to sign a 1 year deal without compensation if they are unemployed at a certain point into ST. Drew is an upgrade over a lot of team's SS positions right now and remains unemployed due to the compensation pick... Granted, he and his agent poorly estimated his market demands, but signing a 1 year deal at a reduced price is bad enough vs. potentially not playing for a good chunk (or all) of 2014.

#4 amjgt

amjgt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 526 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 05:20 PM

If he signs after the 2014 draft the draft pick compensation just goes way. The team signing him won't have to surrender any 2015 picks.


Thanks.

At this point, that's what he should be waiting for.

#5 darin617

darin617

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 608 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 05:50 PM

Steven Drew would be a waste of money. If the Twins are willing to spend some more money they would be better of with Kendrys Morales. I still would not sign either player and surrender a 2nd round pick.

#6 SgtSchmidt11

SgtSchmidt11

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 06:54 PM

I honestly think they should amend the rules to allow players to sign a 1 year deal without compensation if they are unemployed at a certain point into ST. Drew is an upgrade over a lot of team's SS positions right now and remains unemployed due to the compensation pick... Granted, he and his agent poorly estimated his market demands, but signing a 1 year deal at a reduced price is bad enough vs. potentially not playing for a good chunk (or all) of 2014.


This too would be taken advantage of. Imagine a gentleman's agreement to bump up the salary by 1MM or something if they delay signing until the draft compensation was released.

#7 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 11:14 PM

I think draft pick penalties will be gone in the next CBA. there are always a couple of cases where somebody isn't signed during spring training. This year there happen to be two bigger name players not signed on opening day due to this silly system.

#8 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 432 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 05:22 AM

I think draft pick penalties will be gone in the next CBA. there are always a couple of cases where somebody isn't signed during spring training. This year there happen to be two bigger name players not signed on opening day due to this silly system.

This "silly" system offers a small degree of balance. With the gap in revenue growing even larger, it provides the teams at the bottom something in return for being a farm system for the Yankees, Dodgers, and other teams at the top of the revenue period. It also allows teams to retain someone like Morales, who is obviously of questionable value on a multi-year deal, the opportunity to retain that player on a one year deal. Drew and Morales would have obviously been compensation above their annual value but refused contracts. Why? Because they want to get paid far more than they are worth while they are declining. They could have extremely well compensated but at this point they were only going to be able to sign at an elite level on a year by year basis. In other words, as long as they continued to earn it. So, how is this system silly?

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 31 March 2014 - 05:28 AM.


#9 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,703 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 06:47 AM

This "silly" system offers a small degree of balance. With the gap in revenue growing even larger, it provides the teams at the bottom something in return for being a farm system for the Yankees, Dodgers, and other teams at the top of the revenue period. It also allows teams to retain someone like Morales, who is obviously of questionable value on a multi-year deal, the opportunity to retain that player on a one year deal. Drew and Morales would have obviously been compensation above their annual value but refused contracts. Why? Because they want to get paid far more than they are worth while they are declining. They could have extremely well compensated but at this point they were only going to be able to sign at an elite level on a year by year basis. In other words, as long as they continued to earn it. So, how is this system silly?


It's not working to help the small market teams though. The Yankees and Red Sox tagged six players this year for a QO and there was only 13 total players in all of baseball that even got one.

The Pirates on the other hand didn't feel they could afford to offer AJ Burnett a QO as $14.5 million is a lot of money for a small market team to commit to. Burnett was a better player the last two years than Napoli, Drew and Granderson and probably equal to Kuroda. Gambling on an overpay is no big deal to the large market teams but it could cripple a payroll for a small market.

No doubt when the CBA is renegotiated, it will be the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers who are in favor of keeping this provision while the Pirates, Twins and Royals would want to get rid of a system where they have to gamble $15+ million that a player won't take the bird in the hand.

Edited by nicksaviking, 31 March 2014 - 06:51 AM.


#10 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 06:56 AM

It's not working to help the small market teams though. The Yankees and Red Sox tagged six players this year for a QO and there was only 13 total players in all of baseball that even got one.

The Pirates on the other hand didn't feel they could afford to offer AJ Burnett a QO as $14.5 million is a lot of money for a small market team to commit to. Burnett was a better player the last two years than Napoli, Drew and Granderson and probably equal to Kuroda. Gambling on an overpay is no big deal to the large market teams but it could cripple a payroll for a small market.

No doubt when the CBA is renegotiated, it will be the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers who are in favor of keeping this provision while the Pirates, Twins and Royals would want to get rid of a system where they have to gamble $15+ million that a player won't take the bird in the hand.


This is a really good point. If part of the purpose in the CBA is to level the playing field, it isn't doing its job. The Twins would have Drew at short if the Red Sox hadn't QOd him. As I said in another thread, they effectively Bogaerted available shortstops when they did that. If part of the purpose of the CBA is to help players get better opportunities, it is obviously not doing its job for those players given QOs. Rules that are neither good for players nor the owners are changed in the next CBA revision.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#11 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 08:39 AM

This "silly" system offers a small degree of balance. With the gap in revenue growing even larger, it provides the teams at the bottom something in return for being a farm system for the Yankees, Dodgers, and other teams at the top of the revenue period. It also allows teams to retain someone like Morales, who is obviously of questionable value on a multi-year deal, the opportunity to retain that player on a one year deal. Drew and Morales would have obviously been compensation above their annual value but refused contracts. Why? Because they want to get paid far more than they are worth while they are declining. They could have extremely well compensated but at this point they were only going to be able to sign at an elite level on a year by year basis. In other words, as long as they continued to earn it. So, how is this system silly?


That is the theory but that isn't how things are. The Yankees and Red Sox (and other large market teams) have always made out like gangbusters due to comp picks. It's ironic almost that it has almost the opposite effect that you think it would.

But comp picks aren't actually the problem. they can stay. The problem is that mid-market and definitely small market teams can't afford to lose a draft pick since that is an essential asset to their org. So the large market teams benefit again since they can afford to lose draft picks. Teams like the Twins can't sign anyone in FA even if they have the money.

#12 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,906 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 08:45 AM

An idea I heard just removes the player deadline to accept the qualifying offer (or moves it much later). So Drew could have taken his 1/14 at the start of ST.

#13 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,906 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 08:48 AM

Also, smaller markets can deal with QO. Pittsburgh was silly for not making the offer to Burnett, he was clearly worth it.

#14 twinscowboysbulls

twinscowboysbulls

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 446 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 08:51 AM

Facts are Facts. Twins are better with either Stephen Drew or Kendrys Morales or both. When you are under your supposed salary cap, it's hard to state that they would be a waste of money when they make you BETTER.

#15 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 08:55 AM

An idea I heard just removes the player deadline to accept the qualifying offer (or moves it much later). So Drew could have taken his 1/14 at the start of ST.


That doesn't work at all. How could a team make any offseason moves if they have a standing QO on the table?

The answer is to just get rid of the draft pick penalty. The QO system and comp picks can stay if people want to retain the illusion that it helps small market teams. Getting rid of the draft pick penalty allows every team to go after big FA's (if they have the money). And it keeps players out of this silly limbo.

#16 gil4

gil4

    Irrational Optimist

  • Members
  • 630 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 08:56 AM

The Twins would have Drew at short if the Red Sox hadn't QOd him.


That is far from certain. The Twins weren't the only team in need of a shortstop but put off by the comp pick.

#17 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,516 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 08:58 AM

This "silly" system offers a small degree of balance. With the gap in revenue growing even larger, it provides the teams at the bottom something in return for being a farm system for the Yankees, Dodgers, and other teams at the top of the revenue period. It also allows teams to retain someone like Morales, who is obviously of questionable value on a multi-year deal, the opportunity to retain that player on a one year deal. Drew and Morales would have obviously been compensation above their annual value but refused contracts. Why? Because they want to get paid far more than they are worth while they are declining. They could have extremely well compensated but at this point they were only going to be able to sign at an elite level on a year by year basis. In other words, as long as they continued to earn it. So, how is this system silly?


So why not simply give the team an "extra" draft pick, rather than the signing team's pick?
This way the team still gets compensated, but without punishing the signing team.

#18 Chance

Chance

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 535 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 09:30 AM

Facts are Facts. Twins are better with either Stephen Drew or Kendrys Morales or both. When you are under your supposed salary cap, it's hard to state that they would be a waste of money when they make you BETTER.


There is nothing factual about this. It is merely your opinion. For example; my opinion is that the Twins would be better off without either of them.

#19 Winston Smith

Winston Smith

    Old Geezer

  • Members
  • 1,377 posts
  • LocationOceania

Posted 31 March 2014 - 09:32 AM

I think the Twins second pick is about 45 and that's what I looked up. 1965-2009 45 drafts the number 45 pick has had a 58% fail rate, the player never made it to the majors.

33% made it and had a negative war or a career war of less than 3. Only 9% or 4 players in 45 years had a war over 3 and none of those were over 8.

IMO getting a quality player like Drew that has produced around 16 war over his career seems like a great trade off. The chances of drafting a player and getting any decent production is less than 10%.

I'd bet that you'd get more than that out of Drew even if he doesn't reproduce last year.

May all our prospects be All Stars and the beer be free.


#20 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,703 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 09:35 AM

So why not simply give the team an "extra" draft pick, rather than the signing team's pick?
This way the team still gets compensated, but without punishing the signing team.


Yes agreed. This is partly how the old system worked. Previously the buying team would lose a pick AND a secondary comp pick was created out of thin air. They should just award the manufactured pick in a compensation round immediately following the first 30 picks.

#21 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,703 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 09:39 AM

33% made it and had a negative war or a career war of less than 3. Only 9% or 4 players in 45 years had a war over 3 and none of those were over 8.

IMO getting a quality player like Drew that has produced around 16 war over his career seems like a great trade off. The chances of drafting a player and getting any decent production is less than 10%.

I'd bet that you'd get more than that out of Drew even if he doesn't reproduce last year.


If we're basing the results on WAR, I'd bet you'd only get more out of Drew simply because playing SS virtually promises positive WAR. Drew is nearly washed up and his numbers away from Fenway and against lefties support that idea. I think the odds that Drew is a useful player for the next 2-3 years is also about 9%.

#22 amjgt

amjgt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 526 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 11:32 AM

What about rather than a team giving it's 1st or 2nd round pick (based on previous year standings) to the team that lost the player, the pick is swapped with the former team's following round draft pick?

So, in the case of Drew, the Twins would send their 2nd round pick to Boston and Boston would send their 3rd round pick to MN.

In the case of Ervin Santana, the Braves would send their 1st round pick to KC and Atlanta would receive KC's 2nd round pick.

A couple contingencies would have to be into place in the case of multiple signings, but that's the framework.

There is still a penalty, but one that I think a front office could more easily stomach than completely losing a high pick.

#23 Winston Smith

Winston Smith

    Old Geezer

  • Members
  • 1,377 posts
  • LocationOceania

Posted 31 March 2014 - 11:39 AM

If we're basing the results on WAR, I'd bet you'd only get more out of Drew simply because playing SS virtually promises positive WAR. Drew is nearly washed up and his numbers away from Fenway and against lefties support that idea. I think the odds that Drew is a useful player for the next 2-3 years is also about 9%.


There you go why even try to make the team better because there is a chance it might not work?

May all our prospects be All Stars and the beer be free.


#24 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Cynical Oldie

  • Members
  • 3,753 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 31 March 2014 - 11:49 AM


#25 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,780 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 11:54 AM


Am I reading this correcly? The Tigers no longer have to forfeit a pick because the season has started?

#26 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Cynical Oldie

  • Members
  • 3,753 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 31 March 2014 - 12:00 PM

Am I reading this correcly? The Tigers no longer have to forfeit a pick because the season has started?


I wondered about that, too and was hoping someone would clarify.

#27 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Cynical Oldie

  • Members
  • 3,753 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 31 March 2014 - 12:05 PM

I'm thinking that he means that the TIGERS would still forfeit a draft pick for this year (if the signing is before the June date) BUT that Drew may be more willing to sign a one-year deal now because he wouldn't be subject to a QO at the end of this year.

Is that a correct understanding of how the QO system works?



**And Rosenthal does a lot of speculating but he does have some pretty good sources.

#28 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,780 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 12:09 PM

Ah, that makes more sense. It's a good thing for Drew, not necessarily the Tigers.

#29 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2014 - 12:51 PM

So why not simply give the team an "extra" draft pick, rather than the signing team's pick?
This way the team still gets compensated, but without punishing the signing team.

IMO this is a bad solution, in that it penalizes all teams when one team signs a FA.

Why should the Twins second round pick move down because the Yankees or the Red Sox signed a FA, and the league created draft picks out of thin air and wedged them in between the 1st and second rounds? The Twins (and every other teams) second round picks, and every pick after that, just got less valuable, because there are now more picks ahead of them.

I'm not sure what the answer is--I'm not even sure the current system is really a problem, except for players--but I hope they don't go back to creating comp picks.

#30 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 11:09 PM

IMO this is a bad solution, in that it penalizes all teams when one team signs a FA.

Why should the Twins second round pick move down because the Yankees or the Red Sox signed a FA, and the league created draft picks out of thin air and wedged them in between the 1st and second rounds? The Twins (and every other teams) second round picks, and every pick after that, just got less valuable, because there are now more picks ahead of them.

I'm not sure what the answer is--I'm not even sure the current system is really a problem, except for players--but I hope they don't go back to creating comp picks.


So it's not a problem that the Twins avoid any FA that might result in the loss of a 2nd rd pick? All the current system does is to put one more obstacle in the way of small/mid market teams signing good FA's since it's essential for them to build from the farm.

The whole system accomplishes nothing. The richest teams get the most comp picks since they lose the most players and the poorest teams can't afford to lose draft picks to sign FA's even if they have the money to spend.