Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Stephen Drew / Draft Compensation Question

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 10,545 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
  • 1,940 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

    2 + 2 = 5

  • Members
  • 2,580 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?

If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.

 

Yogi Berra


#24 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Let's Keep Winning!

  • Members
  • 5,986 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 31 March 2014 - 11:49 AM


#25 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 18,456 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

    Let's Keep Winning!

  • Members
  • 5,986 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

    Let's Keep Winning!

  • Members
  • 5,986 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
  • 18,456 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
  • 4,446 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.

#31 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,470 posts

Posted 01 April 2014 - 03:51 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.


In a cost saving measure they will pick a playeer that should haave been picked lower, but in a slot that has a higher percentage of success

#32 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,470 posts

Posted 01 April 2014 - 04:12 AM

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


When a soon to be free agent player with a contract that expires at the end of the season is not with a team for a full season the team cannot do a QO. See Matt Garza.

#33 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,470 posts

Posted 01 April 2014 - 04:46 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%.

100 % usefull in reducing complaints the Twins don't spend money. 91 % chance of an icreaase in complaints they spent money unwisely. About a .01% chance it would makee Nishi's signing look good talent wise.

#34 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2014 - 05:43 AM

So it's not a problem that the Twins avoid any FA that might result in the loss of a 2nd rd pick?

As I said, I'm not sure.

It was the Twins choice not to sign a FA that would result in the loss of a draft pick. A bad choice, IMO, but nonetheless their choice.

What I don't want to see is a return to a system where they don't have control of their own picks, which is what used to happen with comp picks. They'd choose not to sign a FA, but would be hurt anyway, because the Twins draft picks would move down the board and lose value even though the Twins had done nothing.

#35 thetank

thetank

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 204 posts

Posted 01 April 2014 - 06:48 AM

Whoever signs Drew for more than 2 years is going to get burned.

#36 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 10,545 posts

Posted 01 April 2014 - 07:02 AM

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


I'm all for making the team better, but I don't want it to come at the expense of making the team worse in the long run. I'd take Drew on a one year deal, but then you're giving up a high draft pick for a SS who will be here in another throwaway year.

However, I think the chances of him being a servicable player going forward are slim and I don't want $10 million per year tied up in a SS who is no longer usable. It would take away from available future money and more importantly, it would be a roadblock for any future SS opportunities. I seriously doubt the Twins would target another SS upgrade in 2015 or 2016 if they are still paying Drew $10-12 million to sit on the bench, which is where he will belong.

#37 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,446 posts

Posted 01 April 2014 - 10:18 AM

As I said, I'm not sure.

It was the Twins choice not to sign a FA that would result in the loss of a draft pick. A bad choice, IMO, but nonetheless their choice.

What I don't want to see is a return to a system where they don't have control of their own picks, which is what used to happen with comp picks. They'd choose not to sign a FA, but would be hurt anyway, because the Twins draft picks would move down the board and lose value even though the Twins had done nothing.


Teams that have signed/resigned FA's with QO's this year
Yankees -3
Red Sox - 1
Orioles - 2
Rangers - 1
Mets - 1
Braves - 1
Mariners - 1

Most of those teams are large market teams with a few mid market teams mixed in.

The problem is that numerous small and mid market teams have said that they weren't interested in particular FA's because of forfeiting a draft pick even if the player made sense for them.