Article: Twins Trade Phil Hughes, Draft Pick to San Diego

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It could also be that 2019 was the only year San Diego was willing to fork over some cash towards his paycheck. 

 

$7.5M seems like an overpay for the draft pick, but I'd be thrilled if my team was willing to pay for draft picks. The Twins payroll is right now 124M. If it's not at least 131M next year I don't think any spin can hide the fact that this move in no way was intended to make the team on the field better.

 

And it's not getting to 131M unless they sign Machado or Harper; probably need both to surpass that number.

But then why give up the draft pick? They forked over ~$4m last season to get Littell instead of a lesser prospect. Their 2019 payroll commitment is somewhere around $20m (Pineda, Reed, and...?). They literally have no reason to give up a draft pick to move salary unless they're planning something. They could easily come in under 2018 payroll and still be quite active in the offseason while eating Hughes' entire salary.

[Mike Sixel]

But then why give up the draft pick? They forked over ~$4m last season to get Littell instead of a lesser prospect. Their 2019 payroll commitment is somewhere around $20m (Pineda, Reed, and...?). They literally have no reason to give up a draft pick to move salary unless they're planning something. They could easily come in under 2018 payroll and still be quite active in the offseason while eating Hughes' entire salary.

It is possible they really liked Littel. It is possible ownership changed their mind. It is possible they are doing something amazing next year.

 

We won't know until next year, I'd guess.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It is possible they really liked Littel. It is possible ownership changed their mind. It is possible they are doing something amazing next year.

We won't know until next year, I'd guess.

My guess is that they plan to go hard at extending some combination of Berrios, Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Kepler, et al.

[Mike Sixel]

My guess is that they plan to go hard at extending some combination of Berrios, Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Kepler, et al.

Agreed, but really hard to see how they spend more than this year's budget.

[nicksaviking]

 

But then why give up the draft pick? They forked over ~$4m last season to get Littell instead of a lesser prospect. Their 2019 payroll commitment is somewhere around $20m (Pineda, Reed, and...?). They literally have no reason to give up a draft pick to move salary unless they're planning something. They could easily come in under 2018 payroll and still be quite active in the offseason while eating Hughes' entire salary.

 

Well, if someone were to offer me 7.5M for the rights to something I don't even own yet, I'd probably do it too. It probably wouldn't matter how much money I already had.

 

But I'd do it knowing that the fans over at Twins Daily and Fangraphs who dedicate more of their time to baseball than typical fans do were going to call me out on it and rightfully so.

 

I find by jiminy's postulation a few pages back quite plausible. Falvey wanted to free up Hughes' roster spot and the Jim Pohlad let them cut bait but only on the condition that if another team was willing to take on some of the salary then they'd agree to that deal.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Agreed, but really hard to see how they spend more than this year's budget.

I'd love to see a team work a bunch of extensions that are front-heavy in comparison to what we see most of the time. I'd love it even more if my favorite team was the first club to do it.

 

There's no reason to pay Buxton $2m in 2019 and $30m in 2023 or whatever. Start him off in the $6-10m range and keep the later years flat around $15m or something around that number. It gives tons more flexibility in later years to maintain competitiveness for a longer period of time.

[Vanimal46]

I'd love to see a team work a bunch of extensions that are front-heavy in comparison to what we see most of the time. I'd love it even more if my favorite team was the first club to do it.

 

There's no reason to pay Buxton $2m in 2019 and $30m in 2023 or whatever. Start him off in the $6-10m range and keep the later years flat around $15m or something around that number. It gives tons more flexibility in later years to maintain competitiveness for a longer period of time.

We started seeing that last year with Darvish structuring his contract as more front-loaded. I'd love to see that trend continue. As would the players I imagine. That way they can start investing the money early and let it grow.

[jorgenswest]

Another opinion on the deal... (MLBTR quoting fanrag)

 

The Padres, of course, spent considerably more than that to obtain the pick, relieving the Twins of just over $7.6MM of Hughes’ salary. While it seems a shrewd (albeit expensive) pickup of a resource with limited availability, not every organization agrees; one exec from another club told FanRag’s Jon Heyman last week that the Padres were “insane” for taking on that much of the remaining contract to obtain the pick.

Edited June 4, 2018 by jorgenswest

[Mike Sixel]

 

Another opinion on the deal... (MLBTR quoting fanrag)
 

 

which does not mean it helps the Twins.....on the field.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

The fact that they got something for Phil Hughes is a big win, no matter how you slice it.

they got someone to take 7.5 mil of Hughes’ salary. I’m thrilled he’s not on the roster anymore, but I’m pretty luke warm on how they did it. Only two picks today

[Richie the Rally Goat]

which does not mean it helps the Twins.....on the field.

addition by subtraction?

[Mike Sixel]

 

addition by subtraction?

 

they had alreayd subtracted him.....the only real discussions here, imo,are: Is it good for a mid market team to sell draft picks? Is it likley they will spend as much money next year as this year? Is there some other way they'll use the money to improve the team on the field?

Edited June 4, 2018 by Mike Sixel

[Richie the Rally Goat]

they had alreayd subtracted him.....the only real discussions here, imo,are: Is it good for a mid market team to sell draft picks? Is it likley they will spend as much money next year as this year? Is there some other way they'll use the money to improve the team on the field?

this type of trade was possibly the only way JP would ok the DFA

[jorgenswest]

they had alreayd subtracted him.....the only real discussions here, imo,are: Is it good for a mid market team to sell draft picks? Is it likley they will spend as much money next year as this year? Is there some other way they'll use the money to improve the team on the field?

At what number would you have sold the pick? Is there a number?

[yarnivek1972]

I'd love to see a team work a bunch of extensions that are front-heavy in comparison to what we see most of the time. I'd love it even more if my favorite team was the first club to do it.

 

There's no reason to pay Buxton $2m in 2019 and $30m in 2023 or whatever. Start him off in the $6-10m range and keep the later years flat around $15m or something around that number. It gives tons more flexibility in later years to maintain competitiveness for a longer period of time.

Mauer’s contract wasn’t exactly front loaded, but it maintained a set dollar amount every year.

 

I think the MLBPA would balk at a contract that got smaller as years went on. Just on principle. Also, they use comparable players’ salaries to set arbitration awards. A contract that got smaller (noting that is not what you are suggesting) would affect that.

 

Front loading with a “signing bonus” might be the way around it.

 

Lot of season left, obviously, but I don’t know how hard I would be looking to extend Buxton. Certainly not if the season ended today. I’m a little wary of Sano as well. Mostly his ability (or lack thereof) to stay on the field.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Mauer’s contract wasn’t exactly front loaded, but it maintained a set dollar amount every year.

I think the MLBPA would balk at a contract that got smaller as years went on. Just on principle. Also, they use comparable players’ salaries to set arbitration awards. A contract that got smaller (noting that is not what you are suggesting) would affect that.

Front loading with a “signing bonus” might be the way around it.

Lot of season left, obviously, but I don’t know how hard I would be looking to extend Buxton. Certainly not if the season ended today. I’m a little wary of Sano as well. Mostly his ability (or lack thereof) to stay on the field.

Darvish's contract is mildly front-loaded.

[Mike Sixel]

 

At what number would you have sold the pick? Is there a number?

 

Something more along the lines of 25MM or more, real money I could use as a huge signing bonus to get Machado or Harper here. But, that's from a fan perspective, not an owner's......they have enough money to spend more if they want, I really only care about the on field product, I'm not the FO or owner.

 

 

[ken]

From Fangraphs article, the Twins maximize the dollar amount. There are many ways they could use the money.

 

"As for the Twins, there is a certain dollar threshold at which the payroll flexibility for next season became more important than the 74th pick. As a team expected to be in contention, that money could come in handy as early as this year’s trading deadline, but more likely this winter. The team has around $30 million committed in salaries next season and Brian Dozier will be a free agent. While trading a draft pick away for cash isn’t a great look for a small-market team wanting to rely on homegrown players, the cost they extracted from the Padres is higher than we’ve ever seen before."

[diehardtwinsfan]

My guess is that they plan to go hard at extending some combination of Berrios, Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Kepler, et al.

Even with an extension, those guys won't be expensive next year. They could play around with signing bonuses and what not to some extent, but I don't think that will be a huge part of next year's payroll.

[Doomtints]

 

It doesn't benefit the team unless it's spent.

 

It *was* spent.

[gil4]

 

It *was* spent.

It was spent, then in-spent. Now it only helps if it's (wisely) re-spent.

[Doomtints]

 

It was spent, then in-spent. Now it only helps if it's (wisely) re-spent.

 

Tell that to the accountant.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Even with an extension, those guys won't be expensive next year. They could play around with signing bonuses and what not to some extent, but I don't think that will be a huge part of next year's payroll.

My point is that I'd like to see them more expensive next year. If you offer those guys $6-8m for the first season instead of $2-3m, you can try to negotiate lower rates at the end of the extension, which allows you to keep one more player.

 

It makes all the sense in the world to operate this way because the Twins are flush with cash now but won't be in 2022. And Darvish has shown that players can be open to this kind of deal.

[Loosey]

 

My point is that I'd like to see them more expensive next year. If you offer those guys $6-8m for the first season instead of $2-3m, you can try to negotiate lower rates at the end of the extension, which allows you to keep one more player.

 

It makes all the sense in the world to operate this way because the Twins are flush with cash now but won't be in 2022. And Darvish has shown that players can be open to this kind of deal.

It makes sense based on the time value of money.  This was the very first thing I learned in my finance classes in college.  It's good to know major league baseball has finally caught up to this concept. . . 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It makes sense based on the time value of money.  This was the very first thing I learned in my finance classes in college.  It's good to know major league baseball has finally caught up to this concept. . . 

Yep, it makes sense from both sides of the deal, which is why it's frustrating that no one signed this kind of deal for so long.

 

The team gets the potential for an additional 1-2 years of competition by signing several of these deals (and the only downside is the loss of 3-ish percent to inflation each season). A couple of years of contention can be worth tens of millions of dollars to the team, which makes a few percentage points on 2-3 players irrelevant.

 

On the other hand, the players get money valued higher (pre-inflation), get "rich quicker" through bigger early payments, and can grow that money over 3-4 seasons, which could be an enormous amount of money to the player if done correctly.

[diehardtwinsfan]

My point is that I'd like to see them more expensive next year. If you offer those guys $6-8m for the first season instead of $2-3m, you can try to negotiate lower rates at the end of the extension, which allows you to keep one more player.

 

It makes all the sense in the world to operate this way because the Twins are flush with cash now but won't be in 2022. And Darvish has shown that players can be open to this kind of deal.

I think the bigger issue is that these contracts are used for arb and there's a CBA involved. I agree that to some extent, this can be done, but I don't think it's as simply as a 5/40 at exactly 8M per year like what Mauer signed at exactly 23 per year. These guys aren't true FAs.

 

But yes, if this is allowed, we should do it. It would allow us to keep the core together a bit longer.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think the bigger issue is that these contracts are used for arb and there's a CBA involved. I agree that to some extent, this can be done, but I don't think it's as simply as a 5/40 at exactly 8M per year like what Mauer signed at exactly 23 per year. These guys aren't true FAs.

But yes, if this is allowed, we should do it. It would allow us to keep the core together a bit longer.

Oh no, I don't think they could get away with a flat rate. But if you can offer $7m instead of $2m and then $11m instead of $6m, you can get the final couple of years for maybe $15m per instead of $20m per.

 

Do that three times and it's an extra player you can extend.

 

Normally, that would be hard for a team to pull off but the Twins have about $20-25m committed for next season and zero dollars committed for the following season.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Oh no, I don't think they could get away with a flat rate. But if you can offer $7m instead of $2m and then $11m instead of $6m, you can get the final couple of years for maybe $15m per instead of $20m per.

 

Do that three times and it's an extra player you can extend.

 

Normally, that would be hard for a team to pull off but the Twins have about $20-25m committed for next season and zero dollars committed for the following season.

I agree we should do that, but does anyone know how that fits into the CBA? Those contracts are used for arbitration awards, are they not? Or are arb rewards only based off of existing arb rewards?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I agree we should do that, but does anyone know how that fits into the CBA? Those contracts are used for arbitration awards, are they not? Or are arb rewards only based off of existing arb rewards?

If they buy out arb seasons with an extension, I don't think it matters. Don't know that for sure, though... but it makes sense because players who sign extensions usually get more money than they would through arbitration, though it's a modest amount more ($1-2m per season).

[TheLeviathan]

Yep, it makes sense from both sides of the deal, which is why it's frustrating that no one signed this kind of deal for so long..

Plus, it happens in the NFL and NHL too. Why baseball is so weird about this never made sense to me.