Rumors Twins could cut deal with first pick to save money later in the draft!

[Brodin4Calder]

I actually really liked what the Astros did last year. They took a very high upside middle infielder maybe 2-4 spots early (still a top 5-6 pick), got him for a very fair deal, then they were able to get McCullers and Ruiz later because they were going to be tough signs. That played out perfectly for them, but as mww wrote, you don't know that it's going to play out like that either.

 

The Twins aren't afraid to spend. They showed that last year. They'll be smart, but they'll feel convicted that the guy they take is the right guy to attempt to develop!

 

I thought the Astros were really dumb last year. They could have drafted a guy like Buxton who was the best player in the draft with a ton of upside but they went the cheap way which is what losers do. They could of taken Buxton last year and Appel or Gray this year. Yea its a little more risky spending most of your money on 1 guy but if they reach their potential they are priceless. Just think if DET would of made a deal instead of picking Verlander at 2, or if WSH would of made a deal instead of grabbing Harper.... You know what im saying?

[Boom Boom]

I love the title of this article... it's so Twins. The Scoops: Twins narrow pick to college pitchers, prep outfielders | 1500 ESPN Twin Cities ? Minnesota Sports News & Opinion (Twins, Vikings, Wolves, Wild, Gophers) | Sportswire: Minnesota Twins

[cmb0252]

BA had Buxton 1 and Correa 2. Sickels had Correa his #1 last year. Law said while he had Buxton as his #1 prospect all year that it wouldn't surprise him if Correa ended up being the best player from the draft. They have comparable talent but one came at a significant discount. I see nothing wrong with what they did. Don't forget, Correa is a year younger than Buxton so he has plenty of time to catch up.

 

Back to the Twins. I have no problem if the Twins taking a under slot guy at 4 BUT the guy they take still has to be a top talent. Also, its too early to know who might slip due to signability but if they are saving money for later they better spend it.

[gunnarthor]

I thought the Astros were really dumb last year. They could have drafted a guy like Buxton who was the best player in the draft with a ton of upside but they went the cheap way which is what losers do. They could of taken Buxton last year and Appel or Gray this year. Yea its a little more risky spending most of your money on 1 guy but if they reach their potential they are priceless. Just think if DET would of made a deal instead of picking Verlander at 2, or if WSH would of made a deal instead of grabbing Harper.... You know what im saying?

 

The problem is there isn't a Harper, Verlander or Buxton at 4. I want the team to go BPA at #4 but making silly strawmen arguments isn't really helping your case. Right now there is a lot of meh after the top 3 are gone. According to BA, Bryant, Frazier and Meadows would have been in the 8-10 range in last years draft. It's not a good draft. I want the Twins to take whoever they think is the best player at #4, without concerns for signability, agents, position or age. If they think it's a HS catcher, fine. If they think it's Moran, fine.

[nicksaviking]

I don't like the underslot stratagy at all, but I could almost understand it if there appeared to be a ton of worthy, hard to sign talent available to take with the second pick. As it is, we've been crapping on just about every other college arm in the draft. Should the Twins really want to take a lesser prospect in round 1 so they can pay over slot for Anderson or Crawford who have been disappointing us for most of the spring? Of course you could pay over slot to snag a HS arm who will leverage college into a larger contract, but then why wouldn't you just take the best HS arm available when he'll likely be sitting there with the #4 pick?

[kab21]

The reason to go underslot is if the underslot pick was really close to the BPA but was expected to be drafted 5-10 slots lower. If that allows you to upgrade the 2nd rd pick to a mid 1st rd talent then it's a win. If you are going underslot to take a lesser talent then it's a terrible idea.

[cmb0252]

The reason to go underslot is if the underslot pick was really close to the BPA but was expected to be drafted 5-10 slots lower. If that allows you to upgrade the 2nd rd pick to a mid 1st rd talent then it's a win. If you are going underslot to take a lesser talent then it's a terrible idea.

 

nailed it kab.

 

Last year the Astros were able to take a player they valued similarly to Buxton but at a lesser cost. While I personally don't see McGuire being similar value to the other talents at 4, according to reports a lot of teams feel he is a top 10 talent. If the Twins feel McGuire, or another prospect for that matter, is close to say Frazier or Stewart talent wise but will sign cheaper it isn't a bad strategy.

 

While prefer a lot of names to McGuires but what do I know? I'm no scout. I always support the strategy of BPA but every good team has to at least look at this strategy. The Twins didn't use this strategy last year when they could have gotten a player of need, Gasusman was floating taking less money to go higher, so I doubt they do it this year.

[kab21]

Yea they can. If you have a high producing player that gets 100+ RBIs a year like Miggy or Fielder its not to rare that they get a 3RBI+ day and win the game. Mauer doesnt do that, hes just not worth the money hes getting unless hes playing like his MVP season.

 

Are you suggesting that Cabrera hits 3 HR's often to win games? Or do they use ghost runners in Detroit?

[Twins Twerp]

This came from Klaw chat about 30 seconds ago. I hope he is right about Stewart or Manaea. I only posted the same question about Manaea and Stewart 40 times before the program picked this one up:

Question:

Jim Callis said there are rumors the Twins might pop Reese McGuire at #4 and save money for later picks. Have you heard that? As a Twins fan I'm less than excited about that idea.

[h=6]Klaw (1:36 PM)

[/h]

 

I have heard that, but I do not believe they would actually do it. I've heard them heavily on Stewart and think they'd be on Manaea if he were to finish strongly (and healthy). Highest I'm legitimately hearing McGuire is 6 or 9.

[gunnarthor]

Heavily on Stewart. That would be new. Risky but reasonable pick for Johnson.

[Brock Beauchamp]

When your team looks to be on the upswing, you don't blow your last chance at a top five pick by drafting down to spend more in the later rounds, something you can do every other year you draft.

 

The Twins front office would have to be certifiably stupid to even consider such a thing.

[TRex]

Another important consideration for drafting under slot is where you pick. For example, if you use last year's draft, and assume you are drafting someone 3 slots above where they are they are predicted to go...

 

Correa worked out great last year for the Astros because they gave him around the bonus for slot 4 and saved $2.4 million. However, if the team drafting #4 had selected a consensus #7 guy, they would've only saved ~1.2. A similar situation in 2013 (i.e. over-drafting by ~3 slots) would save the team drafting #1 $3.3 million while the Twins would only save $1.25 million. While this would have been enough to cover the difference for McCullers last year ($1.24 million), it would still tie your hands in negotiations.

[Winston Smith]

Do whatever the experts say because they are always correct and always agree with each other.

[cmb0252]

I'm pretty sure all the experts are saying the Twins should take the best pitcher available. The whole under slot McGuire thing comes from their Twins sources.

 

I don't understand the big deal of exploring your options. The Twins front office would be stupid to even consider such a thing? People said they were stupid last year for taking Buxton over a pitcher and how has that turned out? While I prefer BPA than going under slot, I just don't see the big deal in exploring other options.

[diehardtwinsfan]

It all depends on the scenario. If you could trade the 4 overall pick for say a guy who would likely go 8-10 (and given the drop off from the top 3, it sounds like there's little distingusing number 4 from number 10) and then pick up a highschool tough sign that would likely be a 10-20 type guy, I'd say it's worth it. That said, these are going to be high schoolers, which means they will not help in 2015.

 

With the Twins next wave, their biggest need is on the mound or SS. There is no college SS that will compliment that wave, so getting a college pitcher to me seems like a higher priority. Definitely praying that Appel or Gray manages to fall as Houston cuts a deal with a guy like Stewart and Colorado falls in love with Bryant, but I really think Minnesota is going to end up with Manaea. Given that his drop off is likely related to a hip injury, I wouldn't be disappointed.

[nicksaviking]

If it's Manaea teams surely will have done their homework on him. Just like the NFL draft, even the most intrepid reporters probably still don't know what each team's medical staffs know about the guy. I just wish it wasn't the Twins medical staff doing the evaluations.

[Siehbiscuit]

I have stated my dislike for Manaea before and to me there doesn't seem to be a consensus best player for the Twins to take. After the Appel, Gray and lately Bryant there is a whole lot of similarity in talent from 4-10 (like another poster said). To me, signing a guy like McGuire, who may be #8-12 on the Twins board, but saves them $1.5 million, is kind of like trading trades that happen in the NFL Draft. You trade back from 4 and get the other teams #8 and also their 20th overall pick.

 

I know its a little apples to oranges, but this may not be too dissimilar to missing out on Andrew Luck and RGIII last year. They moved back one spot and got an extra pick out of the deal. There is very little that distinguishes these next tier of players.

[Mike Sixel]

Except it isn't like the NFL at all.....you are "trading back" 30 picks, and the odds of the guy you want being there are very, very, very tiny.

[johnnydakota]

I actually really liked what the Astros did last year. They took a very high upside middle infielder maybe 2-4 spots early (still a top 5-6 pick), got him for a very fair deal, then they were able to get McCullers and Ruiz later because they were going to be tough signs. That played out perfectly for them, but as mww wrote, you don't know that it's going to play out like that either.

 

The Twins aren't afraid to spend. They showed that last year. They'll be smart, but they'll feel convicted that the guy they take is the right guy to attempt to develop!

 

You mean they spent heavy on rounds 11-45? or That they spent almost all of there alloted money for rounds 1-10?

[ashbury]

Do whatever the experts say because they are always correct and always agree with each other.

 

Who do you like at #4?

[johnnydakota]

BA had Buxton 1 and Correa 2. Sickels had Correa his #1 last year. Law said while he had Buxton as his #1 prospect all year that it wouldn't surprise him if Correa ended up being the best player from the draft. They have comparable talent but one came at a significant discount. I see nothing wrong with what they did. Don't forget, Correa is a year younger than Buxton so he has plenty of time to catch up.

 

Back to the Twins. I have no problem if the Twins taking a under slot guy at 4 BUT the guy they take still has to be a top talent. Also, its too early to know who might slip due to signability but if they are saving money for later they better spend it.

 

Yup always take the blue-light special and save a few coins , instead of getting a brand name product...

[cmathewson]

Put me down for drafting the best player available and paying the man. I happen to like Minaea followed by Stewart. I'm pretty sure one or the other will be available.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Put me down for drafting the best player available and paying the man. I happen to like Minaea followed by Stewart. I'm pretty sure one or the other will be available.

 

I tend to be with you here. I'd be fine with either one. If the Twins aren't as high on them though, then I could see the trade down.

[cmb0252]

To all the people who are saying they want the Twins to draft Manaea is it just because he is a college pitcher? Because he sure hasn't pitched like a #4 pick should. He is covered in red flags. If people don't want the Twins to reach for a under slot guy then why do you want them to reach for a need? Throwing away value is throwing away value.

[Oxtung]

When your team looks to be on the upswing, you don't blow your last chance at a top five pick by drafting down to spend more in the later rounds, something you can do every other year you draft.

 

The Twins front office would have to be certifiably stupid to even consider such a thing.

 

 

I'm no draft expert but isn't this really the last year they could reasonably draft underslot as well?

 

I mean if you're drafting let's say 15th, the slot value this year is $2.4m. In order to get a tidy sum of $1.5m to spend later in the draft you'd have to drop all the way to the 59th pick in talent level. So you'd have to drop to second round talent just to save enough money to sign that tough sign middle of the 1st round talent you want to sign in the second round.

 

On the other hand the Twins slot this year is worth $4.5m but if they sign a talent expected to go just 5 slots lower they save that same $1.5m.

 

I just don't see how the underslot draft strategy can work much past the 4th pick overall because slot values start to plateau quickly.

[kab21]

The problem is that the underslot pick won't usually take the full underslot amount for 5 picks lower. You are probably looking at saving half of that amount because that player might not drop all the way to #10.

 

I said it earlier but if they have two guys basically tied on their draft board and one is projected to go closer to #10 then I can understand going underslot to save about 1M to spend later in the draft. An extra 1M brings the value of the #42 pick up to about the same as the #15 so they would have a chance of getting a pretty good talent if one fell because of signability.

[Oxtung]

The problem is that the underslot pick won't usually take the full underslot amount for 5 picks lower. You are probably looking at saving half of that amount because that player might not drop all the way to #10.

 

I said it earlier but if they have two guys basically tied on their draft board and one is projected to go closer to #10 then I can understand going underslot to save about 1M to spend later in the draft. An extra 1M brings the value of the #42 pick up to about the same as the #15 so they would have a chance of getting a pretty good talent if one fell because of signability.

 

Even with 42nd pick talent instead of 59th pick talent (which doesn't really make sense because if the 10th overall talent thinks he would have gone higher and you end up splitting the difference then the 42/59th level talent thinks he should have gone higher and you'll split that difference too, but this is a minor quible) it still doesn't make any sense. You'd be giving up on a guaranteed middle of the first round talent + guaranteed middle of the second round talent for the guaranteed middle of the second round talent and a chance at a middle of a first round pick.

 

Or in a more visual form:

 

15th pick: Guaranteed mid-2nd Rounder

59th pick: chance at mid-first rounder if he falls to you

vs.

15th pick: Guaranteed mid-1st Rounder

59th pick: Guaranteed mid-2nd Rounder

 

The reason it makes sense with high draft picks is because you get this scenario:

 

#4 Pick: Guaranteed top 10 pick

#43 Pick: Chance at mid-1st rounder if he falls

vs.

#4 Pick: Guaranteed Top 10 talent

#43 Pick: Guaranteed 2nd round talent

[diehardtwinsfan]

The trick to cutting a deal is that no one else has done it. There won't be a ton of HS first round type talent guys that fall. If Houston does it with 1 overall, then I see no reason for MN to do it.

 

One downside to it is that none of these guys are going to help the next wave. You might get a college guy like Chris Anderson to sign under slot, but that would be about as close as it gets. Your next pick will most certainly be a high school talent that won't be here anytime soon (now to caveat this, if they think Anderson is the best talent, then you do it). To be clear, I'm not terribly against it, but I think I'd prefer Stewart or Manaea assuming the big 2 are gone.

 

What I kind of wonder is if Stewart would go under slot at 4. I would almost certainly bet that he'd go under slot at 1 over all. If Houston wants to do what they did last year, I think Stewart makes far more sense for them than Appel or Gray. He's still a number 1. Age wise he fits into their next wave, and signing him for say 4M would give them a chance to throw 3M at another falling prep draftee.

[silverslugger]

There's no reason for Stewart to go under slot at 4. He and his agent realize he most likely won't be around past 6. From a player's perspective, you take under slot money at 4 because you realize you'll probably go 8-10 but could fall into the mid teens. So, you take 8-10 slot money at 4 as insurance that you won't have to accept mid 1st round slot if you fall.

 

So, getting back to Stewart. The only scenario in which Stewart should accept under slot is if he is being picked at 1 or 2 and getting 4 or 5 money to guarantee he won't have to take 6-8 money. Houston could do this at 1, Chicago won't do this with their #2. Houston doing this is about the only chance the Twins have at seeing one of the top 3 fall to 4.

[silverslugger]

What I find really fascinating in all this talk about under slot/over slot etc. etc. etc. is that people are forgetting that after the top 3 in this draft the other players all basically come in waves of talent. In other words, the top three are the first wave, then there's the next level of talent which includes about a half dozen players, then the next level which is the mid-first rounders, etc.

 

The reality is, many of these players (about half?) will flame out and never do anything meaningful at the major league level. It's practically impossible to tell who that will be at this point. We simply have no idea who will be the better major leaguer at this point, Manaea or Stewart or McGuire or whoever. Neither do the scouts or the front offices. The NFL draft is full of busts and it doesn't include high schoolers and non of those players have to spend years toiling in the minors before attempting to make an NFL team. The MLB draft is truly a crapshoot. So I guess what I'm saying in all this rambling is, as fans, we probably shouldn't get our undies in too much of a bunch when the Twins don't do what we expected them to do with pick 4.

 

Finally, the fact that round 1 and 2 in the baseball draft produce more top end talent than ever before in it's history is duly noted thanks to other posters and other threads. And...what fun is being a fan if your undies aren't in a bunch so...go ahead and bunch!