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

#21 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 17,673 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 09:58 AM

 

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.

I'm not sure where you are seeing $149 mil. I see $131.5 mil under Total Payroll:

 

https://www.spotrac....-twins//payroll

 

Luxury tax payroll is a little higher at $139 mil, but that's likely irrelevant to the Twins. (It ignores the Donaldson deal being a backloaded, etc.) Spotrac seems a little hard to read for my taste too -- for example, I can't see where or how they are accounting for the Maeda cash.

 

I prefer Cot's Contracts as my source, and they have the Twins at $135.5 right now for 2020 -- they are assuming the $10 mil from the Dodgers is spread out evenly over Maeda's deal:

 

https://legacy.baseb...innesota-twins/

 

https://docs.google....#gid=1520401900

 

Edit to add: Cot's also notes the 26th roster spot, and Perez's buyout counts against fiscal year 2019 which is generally how MLB teams operate. You are correct that IL stints will increase this, but it will basically just be at league minimum salary prorated for IL days. Per Spotrac's IL days for 2019 Twins, that would have been less than $2 mil.

  • SQUIRREL, SwainZag, Sconnie and 1 other like this

#22 IndianaTwin

IndianaTwin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 1,537 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 10:40 AM

 

I'm not sure where you are seeing $149 mil. I see $131.5 mil under Total Payroll:

 

https://www.spotrac....-twins//payroll

 

Luxury tax payroll is a little higher at $139 mil, but that's likely irrelevant to the Twins. (It ignores the Donaldson deal being a backloaded, etc.) Spotrac seems a little hard to read for my taste too -- for example, I can't see where or how they are accounting for the Maeda cash.

 

I prefer Cot's Contracts as my source, and they have the Twins at $135.5 right now for 2020 -- they are assuming the $10 mil from the Dodgers is spread out evenly over Maeda's deal:

 

https://legacy.baseb...innesota-twins/

 

https://docs.google....#gid=1520401900

 

Edit to add: Cot's also notes the 26th roster spot, and Perez's buyout counts against fiscal year 2019 which is generally how MLB teams operate. You are correct that IL stints will increase this, but it will basically just be at league minimum salary prorated for IL days. Per Spotrac's IL days for 2019 Twins, that would have been less than $2 mil.

 

Thanks for these other sources. I'm not very familiar with manipulating these sites, and it seemed high. I see that one thing I was doing was using "average" salaries in contracts, so Polanco and Kepler were overvalued, for example. 

 


#23 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 23,298 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 10:58 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.

Yeah, the $10m is meh. As a fan, I don't really give a damn whether the Pohlads make $40m or $48m from the team, I just want the Twins to get better, and they did.

  • diehardtwinsfan, James, Sconnie and 2 others like this

#24 IndianaTwin

IndianaTwin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 1,537 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 11:34 AM

 

...I prefer Cot's Contracts as my source, ... they are assuming the $10 mil from the Dodgers is spread out evenly over Maeda's deal...

 

 

 

Whether the money is over one year or four (or something else) was a wondering I had as well, but hadn't seen addressed yet.

 

 


#25 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 17,673 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 12:02 PM

 

Whether the money is over one year or four (or something else) was a wondering I had as well, but hadn't seen addressed yet.

I suspect it has to be spread out over all 4 years, since Maeda isn't even guaranteed $10 mil in the first 3 years of the deal.

 

Even if it could just be called a lump-sum $10 mil cash payment, I doubt the Dodgers would want to do that because it would have greater effects on their 2020 luxury tax payroll, as compared to spreading it out over 4 years.

  • IndianaTwin likes this

#26 bustedstuff88

bustedstuff88

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 81 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 12:07 PM

I dont understand why this is even a question considering (and we have all witnessed it firsthand many, many times) how infrequently prospects, even top ones actually pan out.

 

GIVE ME THE MONEY!!!


#27 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 17,673 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 12:18 PM

 

I dont understand why this is even a question considering (and we have all witnessed it firsthand many, many times) how infrequently prospects, even top ones actually pan out.

 

GIVE ME THE MONEY!!!

But teams don't often flip prospects for money. So I don't think the general failure rate of picks or prospects is really much of a factor here.

  • Mike Sixel and Dman like this

#28 howieramone2

howieramone2

    Just say no to myths!

  • Member
  • 1,930 posts
  • LocationMaple Grove/Schaumburg

Posted 10 February 2020 - 12:21 PM

What better factor is there?

#29 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 17,673 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 12:37 PM

 

What better factor is there?

If the Twins made this deal because of the general failure rate of prospects and picks, we'd see a lot more prospects and picks exchange hands for cash than we actually do.

 

But we don't, because for the most part, even at their high failure rate, teams value prospects and picks more than the "cash value" printed on them. :)

 

Not that there's anything wrong with this deal. I just think there's a lot more to it than that.

  • Mike Sixel and Dman like this

#30 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,962 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 12:39 PM

The sale of the comp pick in the Hughes deal was defended similarly; it's cash to fill roster holes. That money was pocketed, as I suspect this will be too. I'd prefer this FO stop selling draft picks.

  • Mike Sixel likes this

#31 Darius

Darius

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,759 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 12:53 PM

Why would anyone care about the money, other than team ownership? Ownership has shown repeatedly that a penny saved in one season doesn’t get allocated to the following year’s budget (not saying it should or shouldn’t, just a fact).

The $10M means absolutely nothing to this year’s team or future teams. We’re basically analyzing whether a top prospect is better than nothing.

If we’re going to pretend like the $10M actually means something to the future of the team, what does $10M get you on the open market? Two years of a middle reliever or a bench player? So, we’re talking about whether one would rather have a top prospect or a middle reliever?

I’m sorry, but there is just no rational argument for taking the money (unless you’re an owner). It adds the least amount of value to future rosters, and it’s not even close. It’s basically wondering whether it’s better to have a lottery ticket and zero dollars....or just zero dollars.

#32 howieramone2

howieramone2

    Just say no to myths!

  • Member
  • 1,930 posts
  • LocationMaple Grove/Schaumburg

Posted 10 February 2020 - 12:58 PM

You can use the money on a rental at the deadline without asking our benevolent owners.

#33 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 3,530 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 01:14 PM

So the $10 million reduces payroll this year? Or spread out over the contract of the pitcher?

 

Be interesting to see the low level prospect.

 

Think the Twins scored big giving Raley back to the Dodgers. With Rosario still a Twin, and Cave and Wade...Raley was getting pushed further down the pecking order. His strength would've ben first bae, but now we have hopes of Sano holding that position for a year or two.

Joel Thingvall
www.joelthingvall.com
rosterman at www.twinscards.com

#34 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 8,174 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 01:24 PM

I dont understand why this is even a question considering (and we have all witnessed it firsthand many, many times) how infrequently prospects, even top ones actually pan out.

GIVE ME THE MONEY!!!


By this logic, they should just sell all of their prospects and draft picks.
Eventually we'd have a roster full of organizational filler DFA'd by other teams. But hey, the Pohlad's would have a lot more money.
  • Mike Sixel likes this

#35 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Bad puns. That's how eye roll.

  • Moderator
  • 25,755 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 10 February 2020 - 01:26 PM

I remain mildly supportive of this trade, dont care a whit about Raley, but...taking back money for a pick is rather disappointing.

I can live with it, it's not a big deal, it just adds a whiff of sour smell to the entire process.
  • Mike Sixel, Sconnie and KirbyDome89 like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#36 howieramone2

howieramone2

    Just say no to myths!

  • Member
  • 1,930 posts
  • LocationMaple Grove/Schaumburg

Posted 10 February 2020 - 01:39 PM

Rather disappointing and sour smells must surely be better than proclaiming the offseason is a failure and can not be salvaged.
  • SwainZag, Sconnie, Dman and 2 others like this

#37 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Bad puns. That's how eye roll.

  • Moderator
  • 25,755 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 10 February 2020 - 01:46 PM

Rather disappointing and sour smells must surely be better than proclaiming the offseason is a failure and can not be salvaged.

the failure to add to the front of the rotation was, and still is a failure.

They've recovered pretty well, but it's still a failure, and this trade is but one result of that failure.
  • Mike Sixel, diehardtwinsfan, h2oface and 1 other like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#38 Flipper1a

Flipper1a

    Elizabethton Twins

  • Member
  • 17 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 01:49 PM

FO has drafted well the last two years.....we are giving away our comp balance pick, keeping our first and 2nd, and losing our third I believe by signing Donaldson.One pick isn't going to ruin the draft.


#39 howieramone2

howieramone2

    Just say no to myths!

  • Member
  • 1,930 posts
  • LocationMaple Grove/Schaumburg

Posted 10 February 2020 - 02:07 PM

Are you calling the greatest offseason in the history of our favorite team a failure?
  • RaymondLuxuryYacht likes this

#40 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 23,298 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 02:13 PM

I remain mildly supportive of this trade, dont care a whit about Raley, but...taking back money for a pick is rather disappointing.

I can live with it, it's not a big deal, it just adds a whiff of sour smell to the entire process.

I’m a bit perplexed by that part of the move. It just doesn’t really make sense to me. If you asked me which team was more likely to make that request first, I’d have no idea.