Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Article: Using Derek Falvey and Thad Levine's Past to Forecast the Minnesota Twins' 2019 Trade Deadline

derek falvey thad levine minnesota twins 2019 trade deadline mn twins
  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#81 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Twins Mods
  • 13,887 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 13 July 2019 - 06:03 PM

 

I wouldn't be shocked at all if he's traded. he's still a project and out of options. A tanking team would love a guy like that b/c there's decent upside and lots of control. He's either part of their next core, or someone they can flip a in a couple years for more help.

doh


#82 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Twins Mods
  • 13,887 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 13 July 2019 - 06:04 PM

 

Has anyone looked at how much those 23 teams were over?Someone could have gone over by just a few thousand to be included amongst those 23.So spending 100% of this year's allotment may not be all that different than some/most of those 23.

 

I don't understand all the angst about the Twins spending 100% of their allotment this year.When I look at their picks, I see they signed 32 of 41.That's a lot more than most/all years before last year.They signed all of their first 26 picks except the Canadian lefty taken in the 17th round.Who would you want them to sign that they didn't?And are you certain that pick could be signed for $445,000 ($125,000 max plus $320,000 (5% of allotment))?  

 

I just don't understand all the griping about this year's draft.  

 

Personally, I wanted them to sign those HS pitchers they drafted... 


#83 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 15,779 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 07:34 AM

Has anyone looked at how much those 23 teams were over? Someone could have gone over by just a few thousand to be included amongst those 23. So spending 100% of this year's allotment may not be all that different than some/most of those 23.

I don't understand all the angst about the Twins spending 100% of their allotment this year. When I look at their picks, I see they signed 32 of 41. That's a lot more than most/all years before last year. They signed all of their first 26 picks except the Canadian lefty taken in the 17th round. Who would you want them to sign that they didn't? And are you certain that pick could be signed for $445,000 ($125,000 max plus $320,000 (5% of allotment))?

I just don't understand all the griping about this year's draft.


I'm not griping about any particular draft -- I see it more as a theoretical approach to the bonus rules.

But that said, the Twins likely drafted the guys they thought would sign for their bonus pool, so you can't really use those guys as an argument they didn't need to spend beyond the pool. A team who was willing to spend beyond the pool probably drafts a different collection of guys.
  • ashbury likes this

#84 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 15,779 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 07:59 AM

That's not entirely true. You can go over your allotment by 5% with what I understand is a 75% cash penalty. The Twins allotment this year was what, $6,400,000 something, so 5% would be roughly $320,000. So they couldn't spend another million, as you suggest, without the harsh penalties kicking in. And those penalties are severe as they deal with the loss of future draft picks.


The example draft under discussion was 2017. The Twins pool was $14.1 mil that year, so they could have added about $700k in bonuses that year with only the tax penalty. (With the penalty, the total additional cost to the Twins would have been about $1.2 mil, which may be where the $1 mil suggestion came from. Plus if they had any left over from their original pool, I suppose -- I think they spent just about everything but I can't recall a final accounting.)

#85 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,075 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 10:30 AM

 

It's not an agreement. The agreement is you can go over, with penalties. 23 teams were over last year. The agreement is you can go over if you want.

 

 

This is patently false, Mike. I'm assuming we're talking about the IFA allotment?

 

The CBA is a contractual agreement. If you read the old CBA contract carefully,you'll understand that teams agreed to not go over. That was the intent. 

 

I understand that 23 teams elected to breach their agreement. But they did in fact originally agree to abide by a contractual agreement to adhere to the allotment system.

 

Apparently, your understanding was that there was no contract, and no agreement, just some arbitrary "rule" that said, "hey, go ahead and go over your allotment, but we're gonna charge you extra."

 

It's a moot point now, because they cleaned up the language and stiffened the penalties as a reminder to organizations that it ain't a pay for privilege thing, and breaching faith with the other teams is cheating.
 

Edited by birdwatcher, 14 July 2019 - 10:32 AM.

  • Major League Ready likes this

#86 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,727 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 03:41 PM

This is patently false, Mike. I'm assuming we're talking about the IFA allotment?

The CBA is a contractual agreement. If you read the old CBA contract carefully, you'll understand that teams agreed to not go over. That was the intent.

I understand that 23 teams elected to breach their agreement. But they did in fact originally agree to abide by a contractual agreement to adhere to the allotment system.

Apparently, your understanding was that there was no contract, and no agreement, just some arbitrary "rule" that said, "hey, go ahead and go over your allotment, but we're gonna charge you extra."

It's a moot point now, because they cleaned up the language and stiffened the penalties as a reminder to organizations that it ain't a pay for privilege thing, and breaching faith with the other teams is cheating.

No. We are talking about the draft.

Edited by Mike Sixel, 14 July 2019 - 03:41 PM.

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. Oh, and I have at least one blog post now......The table on my first blog post is now fixed. Sigh.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: derek falvey, thad levine, minnesota twins, 2019 trade deadline, mn twins