Article: Rule 5 Results: Twins Take Miguel Diaz, Likely To Trade

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Does anyone know if SD still gets their international signing pool even though they are penalized for going over last year? As in they still get the $4.5M or whatever, but they can't sign anyone over $X amount. If that was the case, then they might have a ton of that pool money to spend to help facilitate trades for these Rule 5 picks.

Normally, yes -- they get the full pool, but can't sign anyone for more than $300k.  So they can trade some "slots" in that pool that would otherwise be of little use to them.

 

But the Padres just went over in the current signing period.  So they're not subject to the $300k per player limit until next July.  If they traded slots now, they'd probably just have to pay an increased corresponding penalty, no?

[Boom Boom]

Typically if you have the number 1 pick and trade down to the number 10 pick there is additional compensation.

 

There sure better be here, I just checked Haley's stats and yawned. Maybe he'll miss some bats with a move to the pen.

The Rule 5 draft is full of guys who have yawn-inducing stats... that's probably why they aren't on their team's 40-man.

[markos]

 

Normally, yes -- they get the full pool, but can't sign anyone for more than $300k.  So they can trade some "slots" in that pool that would otherwise be of little use to them.

 

But the Padres just went over in the current signing period.  So they're not subject to the $300k per player limit until next July.  If they traded slots now, they'd probably just have to pay an increased corresponding penalty, no?

The new pools don't have slots anymore; it is just a pool of money. And teams can just trade any value they want - they aren't limited to specific slots. 

 

Earlier this week the 2017-2018 pools were announced. I'm not sure if that means that they can start trading that money, but I would think yes. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The new pools don't have slots anymore; it is just a pool of money. And teams can just trade any value they want - they aren't limited to specific slots. 

 

Earlier this week the 2017-2018 pools were announced. I'm not sure if that means that they can start trading that money, but I would think yes. 

Thanks for the info on slots.

 

As for when they can starting trading, see this from BA:

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/mlbs-new-international-rules-change-game/#3s3MBuGmgdjisGB4.97

 

 

 

The stipulation is that they have to wait until the signing period opens on July 2 to trade pool space from that period.

 

I suppose like any trade, they can make a side agreement to make a future trade, but not only would MLB frown on that, but it probably wouldn't be terribly practical this far out.

Edited December 8, 2016 by spycake

[Mike Sixel]

 

Thanks for the info on slots.

 

As for when they can starting trading, see this from BA:

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/mlbs-new-international-rules-change-game/#3s3MBuGmgdjisGB4.97

 

 

I suppose like any trade, they can make a side agreement to make a future trade, but not only would MLB frown on that, but it probably wouldn't be terribly practical this far out.

 

Wow, that's a stupid rule. A team can't acquire pool money until July 2? How can they plan what they want to do? MLB, I just don't get why they make this so complex.....

[SarasotaBill]

Padres beat write saying:

 

Diaz traded for Haley, PTBNL, and cash

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Wow, that's a stupid rule. A team can't acquire pool money until July 2? How can they plan what they want to do? MLB, I just don't get why they make this so complex.....

They also aren't technically allowed to agree to deals with prospects before July 2, but everybody does it.  I am sure teams can come to verbal agreements about pool money prior to July 2nd as needed.

 

Not sure if that would extend this far out though (or if it would even be worth it for a Rule 5 pick, I am guessing they come pretty cheap).

[Mike Sixel]

 

They also aren't technically allowed to agree to deals with prospects before July 2, but everybody does it.  I am sure teams can come to verbal agreements about pool money prior to July 2nd as needed.

 

Not sure if that would extend this far out though (or if it would even be worth it for a Rule 5 pick, I am guessing they come pretty cheap).

 

But what is the point of not allowing the trade before teh date you can start signing deals? That just makes no sense, imo.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

But what is the point of not allowing the trade before teh date you can start signing deals? That just makes no sense, imo.

Maybe it helps to discourage some agreements to sign prospects early.

 

Maybe taking away part of a bonus pool could be used as punishment if a team is found to have made a prohibited pre-signing day deal with a prospect.  That would be harder to undo if teams had already made trades involving bonus slots.

 

Also, it's a further penalty on teams like the Padres who overspend their bonus pool -- they can't simply trade their future bonus pools as early/easily.

[Jack Goin]

You cannot physically trade picks. You make agreements with other clubs that will make a selection for you and then agree to trade them to you. Usually for cash. Nobody really wants to give a up player to make a selection. That transaction can happen when you do not want to keep the player on your 25-man roster but would like to keep him in you system. See Scott Diamond. We traded Billy Bullock to keep Diamond in the system but off the roster.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Thanks Jack.

 

Any insight on how that 3-team deal went down?  How did we know that Haley would still be available at #10?

 

I understand it when it's a spot or two, like a direct flip with the Padres would have been. But 10 spots down seems sort of unusual.  Unless you absolutely know how teams 2 through 9 are going to pick, seems like a risk if you actually like Haley (and I imagine the cash benefit is probably pretty minimal with Rule 5 trades).

[LaBombo]

 

This man agrees:

http://golistyourself.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/This-Random-Guy-Paid-Us-to-A-Lot-to-Write-About-How-Sexy-He-Is-360x240.jpg

 

 

 

 

_{^{/ he's what comes up first when I do a Google image search today for "random guy"}}

 

Not to be confused with Guy Randome, the French expatriate and former giant slalom and Alpine ski racer, now living quietly and operating a modestly successful if somewhat eccentric lawn care business somewhere in America's Rust Belt...

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by LaBombo

[Seth Stohs]

 

I just saw the confusion on the picture and thought this was a good time to add a request.  Often on TD there is a picture with expectations that we will know who is in it, but most of us do not have that high a face recognition hardware and it would be great if all the photos used had captions.

 

Normally I do, but I didn't think this one needed it. My bad.

[Seth Stohs]

 

The best news from this morning's activity is that the Twins DID NOT lose Lewis Thorpe. If he can get back to the pitcher he was, he can be special!

 

Yes, the hope would be that one in one year, he will have been added to the 40-man roster.

[Seth Stohs]

 

Well, if the Reds carry a third catcher, Turner will stay. Otherwise, don't see him as just a bench bat.

 

Interesting that the Twins didn't get raided in the minor league portion of the draft.

 

So, we still have Wheeler and Baxendale. Not that either are top prospects in the system, but they do give us depth at Rochester and Baxendale is...interesting.

 

Wheeler and Baxendale most certainly would have been on the Twins AAA roster, so they wouldn't have been available in the minor league portion. Same thing with Alex Wimmers who was re-signed. Yorman Landa. Have to assume because the minor league (AAA) rosters aren't made public, for whatever reason. 

 

During the 'roll call' before the minor league draft, the Twins had 31 players on their AAA roster. I think I heard that they could have 38 (maybe it was 39, I might have mis-heard). I was surprised that they didn't take anyone. The price did jump from $12,000 to $24,000, but that wouldn't be a deterrent. Then again, I'd have to look back and see how often a guy taken in the minor league Rule 5 have come up and been very good. Last one I can think of to come up was Brian Buscher awhile back. I believe he was taken in the AA portion. I'm sure I've missed someone though.

[Mr. Brooks]

Thanks Jack.

 

Any insight on how that 3-team deal went down? How did we know that Haley would still be available at #10?

 

I understand it when it's a spot or two, like a direct flip with the Padres would have been. But 10 spots down seems sort of unusual. Unless you absolutely know how teams 2 through 9 are going to pick, seems like a risk if you actually like Haley (and I imagine the cash benefit is probably pretty minimal with Rule 5 trades).

I'm pretty sure they just call up the other GM's until they get to one that says they will take Haley if he's still available and then offer that GM the first pick.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm pretty sure they just call up the other GM's until they get to one that says they will take Haley if he's still available and then offer that GM the first pick.

But the Angels didn't get the first pick. And it makes more sense for the team picking later to start the conversation with the team picking first.

[Mr. Brooks]

But the Angels didn't get the first pick. And it makes more sense for the team picking later to start the conversation with the team picking first.

Right, the Angels probably said we don't want it, we'll just take cash.

[David HK]

 

He does have kind of a cool delivery. Almost like he's in an old western and he's drawing his gun and firing it to the plate.

 

http://www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=1043155583&sid=milb

That is a little funky delivery.  I like even more how he gets it, and throws it, without a bunch of messing around.

[sploorp]

 

The Twins got a PTBNL for Diaz per La Velle (can't copy tweets from work).

 

I wonder if it will be conditioned on whether SD keeps the guy or not.

I wonder if it's possible that Diaz or one of the other San Diego picks could become the PTBNL.  It's likely that none of the three San Diego picked will stay on the roster all year.  Why not not name them as the player to be named, then work out your own deal with the original team?

[Otto von Ballpark]

The vast majority of the time, when it is a PTBNL or cash considerations, it winds up as just cash.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the PTBNL list is pretty limited, like the Padres will give us first crack at the next guy they decide to waive or release or something. Maybe we will get first crack at one of their Rule 5 guys if they decide not to keep them.