New CBA - The Draft

[Whammy]

We've been collectively worried that the Twins' advantage of having the #1 pick would be muted by changes to the draft process/pools.

 

I haven't heard anything leaked from the new CBA agreement that relates to the Amateur Draft, so does that mean we are good?

 

There's been a decent amount leaked, including a hard cap ($5M) on international signing, so you'd think if there were changes to the draft we would have heard about them also.

 

Fingers still corssed? Or big Exhale?

[dougd]

According to MLB traderumours this morning:

 

In the draft, there’ll be some changes in the spread of slot values; details remain unknown, but it seems there’ll be a more gradual decline than the currently steep fall after the first few picks.

 

So perhaps less opportunity for the Twins to do something creative with first pick.

 

[Linus]

Man did they make the qualifying offer stuff complicated. It's going to be hard to argue about on TD!

[Mike Sixel]

 

Man did they make the qualifying offer stuff complicated. It's going to be hard to argue about on TD!

 

Doubly hard, I see!

[ashbury]

Doubly hard, I see!

So nice he said it twice.

 

As for his premise, that people on teh interwebs will find it too hard to argue about the topic, I will argue against that, night and day, until he gives in.

[gunnarthor]

The new CBA also, apparently, bans new players from using 'smokeless tobacco.'  Current players will be grandfathered in.  

[Doomtints]

I love the qualifying offer changes.  I'm sure someone here will write up a summary soon. 

[Linus]

Doubly hard, I see!

Triply hard if there is such a word. Looks like the qualifying offer will not be near the albatross that it is currently.

[jimmer]

There really is no reason for a team to offer a QO now. An 18M roll of the dice to get a 1st round pick is fine. For lower round picks, why bother dangling that kind of money?

[PseudoSABR]

 

There really is no reason for a team to offer a QO now. An 18M roll of the dice to get a 1st round pick is fine. For lower round picks, why bother dangling that kind of money?

I'd think the QO amount would have to be lower given the new system; if they keep it at that amount no team will get compensated for those under 50 million dollar contracts.

[PseudoSABR]

Changes to the international money pool should help the Twins. 

The union fought for months against the owners' push to institute an international draft -- and ultimately won that fight. Instead, the two sides agreed to a hard cap on total annual spending for foreign-born amateur players, of about $5 million for every team. With no exceptions. And no flexibility to go above that amount.

So the days of a Yoan Moncada raking in $31.5 million are over. As are the days of teams like the Dodgers blowing through their international bonus pool and then spending whatever they chose because they didn't mind the penalties. So it will take a while before we completely grasp the effect of this change on teams and players alike. But one thing to file away is this: It's the first time the union has ever agreed to any sort of hard cap in any area. Interesting.

Stark

[Willihammer]

Twins shoulda blown their wad internationally while they could.

Great job, TR.

[Willihammer]

Losing $500k to $1m from a hard, ~$5m international bonus pool in order to sign a free agent seems... almost as bad as losing a first round draft pick. Worse even?

[d-mac]

 

Losing $500k to $1m from a hard, ~$5m international bonus pool in order to sign a free agent seems... almost as bad as losing a first round draft pick. Worse even?

 

A 1st round draft pick is worth>>>> than $500k.

[Taildragger8791]

 

A 1st round draft pick is worth>>>> than $500k.

 

I think his point was that losing 10%-20% of your hard-capped international signing pool takes a team out of the running for the best talent, akin to losing a 1st round draft pick. Or it at least limits the quantity/quality that can be signed.

[Willihammer]

Yeah. We had a firm idea of the discounted present value of #10-30 picks in the draft (something like $8-15 million depending on how heavily you discount future wins).

 

What is the discounted present value of 10-20% of the international bonus pool? I have no idea. It seems like it wouldn't be a small amount of money.

[Mr. Brooks]

Changes to the international money pool should help the Twins.

Stark

Sounds to me like it hurts the Twins. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like each team gets pretty much the same cap. The Twins lose the advantage of having a larger pool for last place.

[d-mac]

 

I think his point was that losing 10%-20% of your hard-capped international signing pool takes a team out of the running for the best talent, akin to losing a 1st round draft pick. Or it at least limits the quantity/quality that can be signed.

 

 

Yeah. We had a firm idea of the discounted present value of #10-30 picks in the draft (something like $8-15 million depending on how heavily you discount future wins).

 

What is the discounted present value of 10-20% of the international bonus pool? I have no idea. It seems like it wouldn't be a small amount of money.

 

That's sort of a two part question isn't it? I'd assume the expected future WAR of the top handful of 16-18 year old international players is less than the top 18-22 year old draft eligible players, but by how much more? The second variable is how much is this new system going to depress signing bonuses to foreign players? I would assume by a fair amount. 

 

[Willihammer]

 

That's sort of a two part question isn't it? I'd assume the expected future WAR of the top handful of 16-18 year old international players is less than the top 18-22 year old draft eligible players, but by how much more? The second variable is how much is this new system going to depress signing bonuses to foreign players? I would assume by a fair amount. 

I'm not asking the second question but yeah, I think its safe to assume international players are going to take a cut on their signing bonuses overall.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Sounds to me like it hurts the Twins. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like each team gets pretty much the same cap. The Twins lose the advantage of having a larger pool for last place.

The advantage for the Twins is that teams cannot no longer go over their cap.  The cap is hard; the Twins method of spending right-up to the cap (or avoiding penalties for going over) will no longer hurt them.   The Twins will still get a larger pool than half of the teams (6 million), but it will be based on revenue.  Add in the QO penalties to the international pool, the Twins should be in a much better position for signing international youngsters (now 25 and under) than they were just a year ago.  

 

(And I didn't recall that the international pool size was tied to the previous year's record? Was that in the old CBA.)

[Mike Sixel]

 

The advantage for the Twins is that teams cannot no longer go over their cap.  The cap is hard; the Twins method of spending right-up to the cap (or avoiding penalties for going over) will no longer hurt them.   The Twins will still get a larger pool than half of the teams (6 million), but it will be based on revenue.  Add in the QO penalties to the international pool, the Twins should be in a much better position for signing international youngsters (now 25 and under) than they were just a year ago.  

 

(And I didn't recall that the international pool size was tied to the previous year's record? Was that in the old CBA.)

 

Yes, to answer your last question.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Yes, to answer your last question.

Thanks.  Any lost benefit from finishing last for the Twins should be (let's hope) short lived.  A scheme that's tied to revenue should benefit the Twins more in the long-run more than a scheme tied to the previous years record.

 

The teams really hurt by the new scheme are big-market losers like Anaheim.   

[d-mac]

 

I'm not asking the second question but yeah, I think its safe to assume international players are going to take a cut on their signing bonuses overall.

 

It was more of a rhetorical question on my part. I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth. 

[Mr. Brooks]

The advantage for the Twins is that teams cannot no longer go over their cap. The cap is hard; the Twins method of spending right-up to the cap (or avoiding penalties for going over) will no longer hurt them. The Twins will still get a larger pool than half of the teams (6 million), but it will be based on revenue. Add in the QO penalties to the international pool, the Twins should be in a much better position for signing international youngsters (now 25 and under) than they were just a year ago.

 

(And I didn't recall that the international pool size was tied to the previous year's record? Was that in the old CBA.)

Yes, previously the worst team got the biggest pool.

 

The Twins chose not to go over cap before. There was no disadvantage preventing them from doing so.

[PseudoSABR]

The Twins chose not to go over cap before. There was no disadvantage preventing them from doing so.

There was a disadvantage for the Twins in that other teams would outspend them and eat the penalties; whether or not the Twins didn't 'choose' to do the same ignores that their were financial restraints on the Twins that put them at a disadvantage.   It's not as if the Twins have had a 50 million payroll the past couple years.  

 

That the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. can no longer blow past their pool is a boon to the Twins. 

[Mr. Brooks]

There was a disadvantage for the Twins in that other teams would outspend them and eat the penalties; whether or not the Twins didn't 'choose' to do the same ignores that their were financial restraints on the Twins that put them at a disadvantage. It's not as if the Twins have had a 50 million payroll the past couple years.

 

That the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. can no longer blow past their pool is a boon to the Twins.

Small market teams have done it too.

[diehardtwinsfan]

so, the pool values are now hard slots, but not nearly as spread out.  Can they still trade pool dollars?  What does the spread look like between the worst team in the league (the Twins) and the best (the Cubs) for 2017?  Just curious.

[gunnarthor]

Do the changes take place for next year (June 2017) or the year after?

[Squirrel]

 

Do the changes take place for next year (June 2017) or the year after?

I was trying to figure that out, but from what I can tell, it will take effect in 2017. In terms of FA then, it doesn't affect those right now, and those who sign for the upcoming season, but it will affect the FA class of 2017; all new rules will be in place for that FA class.. I'm not sure about all the other aspects.