July 10, 20179 yr In the last five years (not including 2017), 74 of the 150 possible pools paid a tax. That's actually higher than I would have guessed, although maybe most of them are of the "going over a couple thousand dollars" variety. But if a team were to use it for more than that, since the overage is 5%, it's a greater advantage for teams with big bonus pools. The Twins this year were allowed $707k extra without losing future picks; the Cardinals had ~$108k. It's too bad there isn't a more detailed breakdown, to see what teams are exceeding it and by how much. Have the Twins gone over at all? We've had a pretty large bonus pool in 5 of 6 drafts now.
July 10, 20179 yr That's actually higher than I would have guessed, although maybe most of them are of the "going over a couple thousand dollars" variety. But if a team were to use it for more than that, since the overage is 5%, it's a greater advantage for teams with big bonus pools. The Twins this year were allowed $707k extra without losing future picks; the Cardinals had ~$108k. It's too bad there isn't a more detailed breakdown, to see what teams are exceeding it and by how much. Have the Twins gone over at all? We've had a pretty large bonus pool in 5 of 6 drafts now. I've tried looking into it more in the past because I was curious about the same thing, but I haven't been able to find a "one-stop-shop" that shows it. Probably would have to look into each team individually. But my gut tells me the teams with lower pools are the ones paying the tax. (less money means they've been having success in the MLB season, and it is more likely they are the big budget teams who may not care) I do not believe the Twins have ever gone over. Pretty certain I've seen that before.
Create an account or sign in to comment