Twins Trade Phil Hughes, Draft Pick to San Diego

Knowing what I know about Falvey and Levine (they're smart) and the Pohlads (they're cheap), my guess is that this deal was made to fulfill a condition the Pohlads put on a deal Falvey and Levine wanted to make but the Pohlads wouldn't pay for. Probably one of two things.

 

1) Falvine wanted to eat Hughes's salary to clear a place on the 40 man roster for someone more productive, and Pohlads said no, only if you get someone to take on some of his contract. Which of course no one wanted to do, so they had to throw in a draft choice.

 

2) Falvine told Pohlad, We really need another catcher, and we can get one by trading for an overpaid veteran and taking on some salary. Pohlad said no, your budget isn't going up. They said, okay, what about if we pay for it ourselves? Pohlad said sure, as long as I'm not paying for it do what you want. So it's a creative way to trade the 74 pick for someone like Wilson Ramos, as someone mentioned above.

 

If they take on additional payroll this year, I'd guess #2. 

 

If they just pocket the money, I'd guess #1. 

 

I'm sure there is a #3, but I can't even imagine what it might be.

I love how it always comes back to the Pohlad's being cheap.

#3. The DFA Hughes, so they didn't have any deals set up.  They were ready to eat the whole salary, so I don't think you can blame the Pohlad's for the trade. 

Like most business, they operate with a budget which doesn't make an owner cheap.  So the FO office knowing they have a budget, received an offer that allowed them to receive some budget flexibility, choose to take the trade offer.  They determined the future budget flexibility was more valuable than the draft pick.

I love how it always comes back to the Pohlad's being cheap.

 

#3. The DFA Hughes, so they didn't have any deals set up. They were ready to eat the whole salary, so I don't think you can blame the Pohlad's for the trade.

 

Like most business, they operate with a budget which doesn't make an owner cheap. So the FO office knowing they have a budget, received an offer that allowed them to receive some budget flexibility, choose to take the trade offer. They determined the future budget flexibility was more valuable than the draft pick.

We don't know that until/unless they spend that money though.

Both sides are speculating

I don't think there's much to be learned by comparing the NFL and MLB drafts.

 

They are completely different animals. 

OK, that's true.  But do you think MLB teams have figured out some way of valuing those draft picks?  I'd say if your team hasn't done so, they're negligent.

Weird trade. My initial thought was that I would very much rather have the pick than the money, but I will give the FO the benefit of the doubt that there is in fact another move to follow. Maybe a trade for a catcher is imminent. I think if we landed Realmuto or Ramos it would make much more sense. I want to like Garver...but he is appearing very much so to be a back up. On a side note, now is a good time to extend as many of our young guys as possible. 

We don't know that until/unless they spend that money though.

Both sides are speculating

Yes, but you are never going to know what the budget is and if they spent the Hughes savings.  But I think it's pretty clear the deal wasn't in place and came together during the 10 days period of Hughes being DFA.  So it was a FO decision to make the trade.

Unlike a lot of people who have fallen in love with the FO, I'm still in a wait in see mode.  But I think this was a solid move in getting $7.5 of flexibility.  Last year, they traded international cap room a prospect about the same level as you would get in this pick and also by absorbing $4.5 million of Garcia's salary last year they ended up getting a better prospect from the Yankee's then you are probably going to draft.  So getting the savings can be spent in a lot of different ways and seems like they got a lot more than they have spent in prior trades for someone they were ready to cut loose.

The move is a lot better than all the young pitchers we have lost through waviers and rule 5, so we could draft a 27 year old AA pitcher or sign Rodney and Duke.

Sure, that is fine. I just don't think you can dismiss #74 picks because there hasn't been a star taken there since, say, David Cone in 1981. When there have been stars taken with picks shortly thereafter.

Not that it changes things too much, but by that point in the draft, you probably want to look at ranges, and expand the sample size.

When you expand the comparison beyond #74 you are multiply the odds of getting a viable player by the number of rounds you are adding.  So, no you can't look at successive rounds or anyone taken past #74 when evaluating the odds of getting a viable player at #74.  It would only makes sense to compare all picks between 74-xxx if they were trading away a comparable number of picks.

I would prefer they kept the pick but I also recognize they are running a business.  

Sure, that is fine. I just don't think you can dismiss #74 picks because there hasn't been a star taken there since, say, David Cone in 1981. When there have been stars taken with picks shortly thereafter.

What was Mariano Rivera's draft position?

I'm afraid I don't follow. The Twins drafted Blayne Enlow at #76 last year. They likely would have drafted Enlow at #74 too, if they had that pick. I wouldn't eliminate him from the analysis when projecting the potential value of our #74 spot this year.

Of course, expanding the sample means expanding the denominator too. So if you found 3 good players at #74 from the last X drafts, and 6 at #75 during that same time, you could estimate that as (3+6) / (X * 2).

Evaluating the last 15 years of picks 74-76, for example, would give you a sample equal to 45 years of just pick 74. And it would probably be a more relevant sample too, given the changes in the game.

(Of course there are limits. A 10th round pick that blossoms into a star shouldn't factor into the analysis at #74. Or even a 5th round pick.)

I was basically saying the same thing as you have here.  If you include 3 rounds for 15 years it's the equivalent of 45 years.  I would take rounds 74-78 for 20 years and make it 100 years. Divide by the number of ML players produced. You could even project the probable war of a player picked.  

I don't like giving up the pick but none of us have any regard for the financial component. This is a business and that's the basis of this decision.  Baseball fans understand and accept players treating it as a business but they often can't accept the teams making business decisions. 

The players don't matter in this trade. Simply said, the Twins sold the #74 overall pick for $7 million then included the other players to make it an actual "baseball" trade. It's a good trade for the fans only if they spend that money next season...

And they have a lot of it to spend.

I have a feeling no matter what amount they spend next offseason, $7 million of it will be counted as "money from the Hughes trade." 

It's a good thing they added some extra budget flexibility, I was worried they wouldn't have much $$ to spend.... 

Just about every trade the Twins have made in the last ten years involving a catcher has had some sort of weird or inexplicable element to it.  Catcher valuation is hard to get right.

It's kind of like the Twins got a $1 tech stock.  Could blow up and be a huge score...most likely not.

I have a feeling no matter what amount they spend next offseason, $7 million of it will be counted as "money from the Hughes trade."

It's a business move to offset Hughes' salary. It won't get spent.

From a purely utilitarian standpoint, a draft pick in the 70s range isn't worth $7.5M, so the Twins are making the move that most benefits the team. Be that as it may, the money will be earmarked to offset the lost salary.

It's a business move to offset Hughes' salary. It won't get spent.

 

From a purely utilitarian standpoint, a draft pick in the 70s range isn't worth $7.5M, so the Twins are making the move that most benefits the team. Be that as it may, the money will be earmarked to offset the lost salary.

It doesn't benefit the team unless it's spent. It's already been said but unless they match or exceed payroll next season, this move is purely about the Pohlad's lining their own pocket, and harming the team in doing so. 

I'm not putting much stock into the monetary value of a draft slot, especially when that assigned value doesn't consider team needs, developmental philosophy, opportunity cost, ect.