Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Getting $10M better than getting a solid prospect?


darin617
 Share

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.com/mlb/minnesota-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.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/american-league/minnesota-twins/

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QXhMYkMxJE1VJvZiNMS1X7OHPFNaIVUjd-m1ZBCzHL4/edit#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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

 

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/minnesota-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.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/american-league/minnesota-twins/

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QXhMYkMxJE1VJvZiNMS1X7OHPFNaIVUjd-m1ZBCzHL4/edit#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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premiere Twins community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...