Otto von Ballpark

Unlikely, and perhaps impossible. Teams can't trade from their bonus pools until the signing period begins on July 2nd, and I believe trades have to be settled within 6 months. And as a practical matter, Rule 5 picks aren't worth that much -- maybe the Twins netted $100k cash with their Rule 5 deals? And bonus pool money is worth more than its cash number, so that would translate to a pretty trivial sum (~$30k?) of bonus pool money.

To be fair, when a team has two consecutive picks, they don't necessarily pick the best one first. Actually they probably want to pick the better one second to justify a slightly lower bonus. (Trout was the second of two consecutive picks that year too.)

Ah, I didn't realize until now that the other groups in your study were limited to the first 5 rounds, it wasn't really clear. That helps.

The later round unsigned picks are primarily the problem, Seth -- team don't necessarily have any real ability (or realistic intent) to sign such players. Teams shouldn't get credit for those picks. The round in which the Twins picked George Springer doesn't even exist anymore. I'm not picking on the Twins for this, just pointing out that including these guys doesn't help the analysis.

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.

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.

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).

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.

I'd expect that Haley is ticketed for the pen. (Haven't seen many Rule 5 starter pitchers actually starting right away) I'd like to see May start, but Santana-Gibson-Santiago-Hughes-Berrios have to be considered near locks as long as they don't get traded and show up healthy. Any word from the new regime about their plans for Trevor May? (Sorry, way off topic, I know)

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).

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.

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?

Not a problem. It would make more sense to trade the top pick Diaz for the #3 pick Cordoba, but alas, that's not what happened. I'm still kind of confused how we got the 10th pick Haley, if that's the guy we wanted all along. We pretty much had to know that none of the other teams picking in the top 10 wanted him? And what do the Angels get out of this? Part of the cash we will receive from the Padres for Diaz, I suppose?

Sounds pretty clear that we got Haley. But indeed it was confusing. MLBTR breaks it down like this: Diaz: Brewers –> Twins –> Padres Torrens: Yankees –> Reds –> Padres Haley: Red Sox –> Angels –> Padres –> Twins I have no idea why Haley had to go to the Padres first, and not directly from the Angels to the Twins... although maybe he didn't really, I think it may have been a 3-way trade that just got mis-reported.

I don't think Cordoba is coming to the Twins. We're getting a PTBNL or cash for Diaz: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/padres-acquire-rule-5-picks-miguel-diaz-luis-torrens.html

Is that speculation, or is this confirmed somewhere? I haven't seen anything about the Twins taking on a second Rule 5 pick.

I think if they are cheap, and you have the 40-man room, you might as well grab a bunch now and pick the best one at the end of spring training. Improves your odds in the Rule 5 draft considerably. Heck, if they play DL games, they could probably roster 2 all season using only 1 roster spot, if they wanted.

Well, the Reds other catcher pick Luis Torrens only managed a .664 in A ball last year (not even high-A). They may have picked him higher to try to flip him, knowing they could get a guy like Turner later? The Reds are pretty thin at catcher and seem determined to rebuild slowly, so who knows. EDIT: And it's done! Torrens flipped to the Padres.

Yes, he still retains his Rule 5 restrictions. He only loses them if we make a deal with his original team (the one he would revert back to if we don't keep him on the 25-man).

I can't see the full article as a non-subscriber, but only 2 of the top 12 "Cream of the Crop" guys from this BA preview were actually selected -- Haley and Tyler Webb: http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/rule-5-draft-expanded-preview/#tK2STbKIPtrI1qYh.97

They probably don't want Turner in CF long-term before he has had a chance at SS. Remember Danny Santana? No team knows where it is going to be in 5 years, but that doesn't mean 5 years of control has no value. They have more options with Eaton -- if the team fades after a couple years, they can always flip him to rebuild/reload. If he struggles, well, the last 2 of those 5 years are team options. There is zero time to realistically flip Dozier, and zero chance of extending him as cheaply as Eaton is controlled. Finally, you keep assuming that Dozier is definitively better than Eaton based entirely off of 2016. Eaton has the higher career OPS, for Pete Redfern's sake. Eaton has steadily averaged 16 Rbat the last 3 years. Dozier did post 30 last year, but was actually -2 the year before that, and 13 the year before that. There is a good chance that that Dozier is no better offensively than Eaton in 2017, and an excellent chance that any Dozier advantage is relatively minor (under 10 runs or 1 win). And in terms of defensive value, there really isn't that much difference between an averageish defensive second baseman and a slightly below average defensive CF or an excellent defensive corner outfielder. The 2B positional adjustment is +4, and Dozier has averaged +1 Rfield, for a net +5 runs per season. CF positional adjustment is +3, and Eaton has averaged -2 runs in CF, for a net +1. 4 runs difference, less than half a win. Plus there is evidence that Eaton could be a superlative corner OF -- RF comes with a -6 run positional adjustment, but Eaton had 22 Rdrs in his time in RF last year, more than making up for that and even some potential offensive difference. Not to say that Dozier can't be a better player/fit for some teams, but it is not definitive at all.

Dozier wasn't even a Dozier until a few months ago. I think you overestimate the ease of finding a comparable player to Eaton. He has averaged 5.1 bWAR over the past 3 years. Dexter Fowler's career high is 4.2, and his next best is 2.8. And he's 3 years older than Eaton, and will cost a first round draft pick and a lot more than Eaton's current contract. Not to mention, the Nats don't have unlimited funds. Getting a strong outfielder at a discount is what helps them afford a Max Scherzer. (Moreover, if you are discussing Dozier vs Eaton for the Nats specifically, the Nats are stacked in the middle infield with Turner, Murphy, and Espinosa. There is just no way that Dozier would be of equal value to them as Eaton. The calculus is hopefully different for another club, of course.)

You're knocking a .790 OPS, but last year was Dozier's first time topping .762. Consistency also comes into play -- Dozier has a much more volatile projection. Also reports on Eaton's CF defense are somewhat mixed. I wouldn't be surprised if he handled it at an average level for a year or two yet (he is still 2 years younger than Dozier after all). And if you don't like him at CF, you still have a plus corner defender. If Dozier slips a bit defensively at 2B in his 30s, what do you have?

Rumor has it the Nats may move Harper to CF and keep Eaton in a corner.

Below average defensively, not overall. Also, might want to check on that for Dozier. Altuve and Canon both outpaced Dozier by a good amount in bWAR.