Stephen Drew / Draft Compensation Question

[The Wise One]

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

[The Wise One]

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.

[The Wise One]

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.

[Guest USAFChief]

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.

[thetank]

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

[nicksaviking]

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.

[kab21]

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.