Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Getting $10M better than getting a solid prospect?

  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#1 darin617

darin617

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,544 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 08:56 PM

I know everyone first thoughts will be that greedy owners just want the money, which is probably the answer most of the time.

 

If you can compare a prospect to cash what level of prospect would this be? Kind of hurts losing the draft pick but we still need to find out who the other player LA is sending in the deal.

  • mikelink45 and rdehring like this

#2 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,605 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 09:04 PM

That pick is valued at around 4.1 million, if that is of interest.
  • Mike Frasier Law likes this

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#3 howieramone2

howieramone2

    Just say no to myths!

  • Member
  • 1,929 posts
  • LocationMaple Grove/Schaumburg

Posted 09 February 2020 - 09:12 PM

I just hope it's a starting pitcher. As far as I can tell, the teams with the most pitching prospects are the Braves, Padres, and Dodgers. I'm hoping we made a new friend.
  • wabene likes this

#4 Danchat

Danchat

    Pro Bowl Armchair QB

  • Member
  • 5,297 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 09:22 PM

Considering the odds of a 2nd round pick panning out, especially a late 2nd round pick, $10M sounds good to me, especially if they are able to spend $10M more on this season than they were originally planning to.

  • James, Puckett34, Mike Frasier Law and 13 others like this

Check out my work at Purple Pain, a Vikings forum: 

Analyzing the Past Decade of Vikings Offseasons


#5 beckmt

beckmt

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,584 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 09:37 PM

 

Considering the odds of a 2nd round pick panning out, especially a late 2nd round pick, $10M sounds good to me, especially if they are able to spend $10M more on this season than they were originally planning to.

It should help the Twins make a mid season move if necessary.The money covered most of Maeda's first year contract.

  • Reider, laloesch, dbminn and 4 others like this

#6 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 10,071 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 09:45 PM

I really didn't like the loss of a draft pick - again. That's the second pick we've thrown away under Falvine. While the pick itself might not work out, it reduces our draft pool. I would much rather have gotten a prospect back or just kept the pick.

  • mikelink45, Dman, sftwinsfan and 2 others like this

#7 howieramone2

howieramone2

    Just say no to myths!

  • Member
  • 1,929 posts
  • LocationMaple Grove/Schaumburg

Posted 09 February 2020 - 09:48 PM

Agree, it should fund any deadline move. On the prospect, I'm hoping we have a list of A ball starting pitchers to scout.

#8 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 23,298 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 09:51 PM

 

Considering the odds of a 2nd round pick panning out, especially a late 2nd round pick, $10M sounds good to me, especially if they are able to spend $10M more on this season than they were originally planning to.

Given when this deal transpired, it's unlikely the Twins are going to find a way to spend that $10m before the deadline, if they do at all.

 

The money just makes me shrug. If that's what it took to get the deal done, so be it. I'm more interested in Maeda than Raley and a comp round pick because Maeda makes the Twins better in 2020, not a theoretical 2024.

  • Blake, Kevin, Mike Frasier Law and 13 others like this

#9 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Moderator
  • 14,874 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 10 February 2020 - 07:38 AM

I could care less about the cash, thoug if it's used to get somone at the deadline, then I'll change my tune on that. Historically, that hasn't been the case though... so whatever I guess.

 

I will be curious as to what prospect they get back. My guess is that it won't be much.

  • Brock Beauchamp likes this

#10 IndianaTwin

IndianaTwin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 1,537 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 07:45 AM

Something that doesn’t hurt with the $10MM is that it also gives the FO a little more cache when talking to ownership. If signing Donaldson (and trading for a potentially $10+MM Maeda) caused ownership to feel a little leery about being stretched, getting the money back was a way to soften that.

 

Next year, when the FO wants to stretch ownership, they’ll be able to say, “Remember how last year, we were okay with stretching to get Maeda? Turns out we were able to get some cash back and didn’t have to make that stretch. Let’s sign Player X, even though it makes us stretch a little, and we’ll keep trying to look for ways to get a little of that back.”

 

  • jorgenswest, Mike Frasier Law, dgwills and 1 other like this

#11 IndianaTwin

IndianaTwin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 1,537 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 07:48 AM

 

I could care less about the cash, thoug if it's used to get somone at the deadline, then I'll change my tune on that. Historically, that hasn't been the case though... so whatever I guess.

 

I will be curious as to what prospect they get back. My guess is that it won't be much.

 

I agree that it won’t be much. On the other hand, Keuchel was probably seen as “not much” when some of the same braintrust got him as a throw-in to a trade when working for Cleveland a few years ago. 

 

One can hope...

  • Dman likes this

#12 IndianaTwin

IndianaTwin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 1,537 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 07:50 AM

We should also remember the $10MM when we see what the final payroll ends up being. Then, when we hear “the Pohlads won’t spend any money,” we can also say, “Not only did they increase the payroll substantially in 2020, they were willing to spend $10MM more than they actually did!”

  • darin617 and dbminn like this

#13 redstorm

redstorm

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 127 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 08:00 AM

 

We should also remember the $10MM when we see what the final payroll ends up being. Then, when we hear “the Pohlads won’t spend any money,” we can also say, “Not only did they increase the payroll substantially in 2020, they were willing to spend $10MM more than they actually did!”

 

Isn't the opposite also true then?

 

Say they spend $140M on payroll, but pocket the $10M. Then they actually only spent $130M, since they would have kept the $10M?

  • gunnarthor, Sconnie, jz7233 and 1 other like this

#14 mikelink45

mikelink45

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 3,011 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 08:26 AM

 

Agree, it should fund any deadline move. On the prospect, I'm hoping we have a list of A ball starting pitchers to scout.

Do they really need that boost for deadline deals?

  • whosafraidofluigirussolo likes this

#15 Number3

Number3

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 453 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 08:34 AM

Position players report 1 week from today. I hope they beat the U of MN Gophers on the 21st. Glad the off season lineup bantering is almost over. $10mil here, $10mil there, pretty soon you are talking about real money.

  • Mike Frasier Law, LA VIkes Fan, IndianaTwin and 2 others like this

#16 bunsen82

bunsen82

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 101 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 08:40 AM

We can purchase someone else's comp pick and possibly a better comp pick and still be way ahead.The only issue is if the cash was always part of the deal because we are internally capped on salary and this was a way to pay for Maeda this year.My other theory is we use the 10 million to do an extension with Berrios (that would be pipe dream). 

  • IndianaTwin, gagu and LoveMyPug like this

#17 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 17,673 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 08:48 AM

I just posted this in another thread on the trade, but it seems relevant here too:

 

Worth keeping in mind that the draft pick is probably worth more than $4.1 mil. Those Fangraphs value estimates don't take into account that only a few picks can be traded, which effectively makes those picks more valuable relative to the non-tradable picks.

 

That's how we effectively got $7.25 mil from the Padres for the #74 pick in the Hughes trade of 2018. I'd guess that we could assign a similar value to the #67 pick in this trade, with the rest of the $10 million being for Raley (less the value of whatever prospect we may still receive).

  • Mike Frasier Law and IndianaTwin like this

#18 ChrisKnutson

ChrisKnutson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 663 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 09:13 AM

While I still dislike the deal, I will admit Maeda’s contract and the additional $10M will definitely leave a lot more room for signing “impact” starters next offseason, especially with Marwin coming off the books as well.

While I’m still not sure how plausible it really is, I can’t help but imagine having Bauer and or Stroman in the same rotation as Berrios...
  • akmanak likes this

#19 Flipper1a

Flipper1a

    Elizabethton Twins

  • Member
  • 17 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 09:17 AM

There are tons of Rule 5 guys next year they are going to have to trade for lower level prospects of some sort.....the two picks the are giving up for Donaldson and Maeda won't hurt that bad.


#20 IndianaTwin

IndianaTwin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 1,537 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 09:47 AM

 

Isn't the opposite also true then?

 

Say they spend $140M on payroll, but pocket the $10M. Then they actually only spent $130M, since they would have kept the $10M?

 

Sure, but if I'm reading Spotrac correctly, this contract puts them at $149.550M. That's without deducting the $10M. It also doesn't include Maeda getting any incentives, Perez's buyout, a 26th player, the possibility of Chacin making the team, and any callups to fill IL stints.

 

Depending on those play out, they could have a roster well into the mid or even upper $150Ms, perhaps even reaching $160M, particularly if they take on any salary at all at the trade deadline. Take out the $10M and they are still upper-mid $140s or pushing $150M.

 

For context, I don't remember many, if any, of our offseason blueprints getting past the mid-$140s. Most of the conversation I recall was hoping they would be willing to break $140M. It seems like they are well past that point.

 

And my point was that, to the best of what we know, they were willing to make the trade when it didn't involve getting $10M back. So, it seems they were willing to go close to $160M if needed. Let's give them credit for that.

 

 

  • Mike Frasier Law, PseudoSABR, LA VIkes Fan and 2 others like this