2013-14 International Free Agency Thread

[Guest]

I know this isn't at all the place for this, but Brett's piece and all the talk about teams blowing past restrictions got me thinking.

 

The new (rule 4) draft rules stipulate that if you blow past the restrictions one year, you lose the following year's first rounder, right?

 

What other penalties are there?

 

From BA:

 

Any team that exceed their bonus pools: a 75 percent tax on a 0-5 percent overage; the loss of a first-round pick and a 75 percent tax for more than 5 and up to 10 percent; the loss of first- and second-rounders and a 100 percent tax for more than 10 and up to 15 percent; and the loss of two-first-rounders and a 100 percent tax for more than 15 percent

 

So what's to stop teams that are actually good (for which those top picks are much less valuable) from overslotting the hell out of their drafts? Can you get enough upper echelon talent in the rest of the draft to justify losing those picks if you're willing to spend the money?

[Guest]

If Torreyes were a 20-year-old Cuban with his skill set and no signing restrictions, he'd get something similar to Concepcion, at least. He's worth a ton more than $800k in cash.

 

Torreyes isn't a 20 year old Cuban. He's a guy the Cubs have seen play for them for a year and a half.

 

Granted, the Cubs familiarity level with him doesn't really change his value to other teams.

 

Brett did say that Law didn't think Torreyes was worth more than $800k.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If Torreyes were a 20-year-old Cuban with his skill set and no signing restrictions, he'd get something similar to Concepcion, at least. He's worth a ton more than $800k in cash.

 

Torreyes isn't a 20 year old Cuban. He's a guy the Cubs have seen play for them for a year and a half.

 

Granted, the Cubs familiarity level with him doesn't really change his value to other teams.

 

Brett did say that Law didn't think Torreyes was worth more than $800k.

 

And like I told Brett, Law is only worth listening to when he agrees with me.

[Guest]

If Torreyes were a 20-year-old Cuban with his skill set and no signing restrictions, he'd get something similar to Concepcion, at least. He's worth a ton more than $800k in cash.

 

Torreyes isn't a 20 year old Cuban. He's a guy the Cubs have seen play for them for a year and a half.

 

Granted, the Cubs familiarity level with him doesn't really change his value to other teams.

 

Brett did say that Law didn't think Torreyes was worth more than $800k.

 

And like I told Brett, Law is only worth listening to when he agrees with me.

 

And that was just as cute and funny the first time you said it.

[Guest]

@BenBadler: I talked international signings with a Cubs and White Sox focus with McNeil and Spiegel on 670 The Score http://cbsloc.al/1banKqI

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And that was just as cute and funny the first time you said it.

 

No cuter or funnier than saying that an actual, honest-to-goodness prospect is worth less than $1m in straight cash.

[Guest]

I know this isn't at all the place for this, but Brett's piece and all the talk about teams blowing past restrictions got me thinking.

 

The new (rule 4) draft rules stipulate that if you blow past the restrictions one year, you lose the following year's first rounder, right?

 

What other penalties are there?

 

From BA:

 

Any team that exceed their bonus pools: a 75 percent tax on a 0-5 percent overage; the loss of a first-round pick and a 75 percent tax for more than 5 and up to 10 percent; the loss of first- and second-rounders and a 100 percent tax for more than 10 and up to 15 percent; and the loss of two-first-rounders and a 100 percent tax for more than 15 percent

 

So what's to stop teams that are actually good (for which those top picks are much less valuable) from overslotting the hell out of their drafts? Can you get enough upper echelon talent in the rest of the draft to justify losing those picks if you're willing to spend the money?

 

Surrendering two first rounders is extremely crippling, even if you pick late. That said, a team is going to push past the limits in an extremely draft (a la 05 or 11) or with a generational talent who won't sign cheap (Harper, Stras, Griffey, A-Rod).

[ScrubMD]

I would otherwise be fine with the theory of them blowing past their spending limit, but that would mean they traded a legitimate prospect (who is 20 years old and performing adequately in AA) plus a respectable bench player, just to save some money on penalties. That would be extremely stupid, in my opinion.

 

I guess it all boils down to what Brett said. Is Torreyes worth $800k or not?

 

I think so. But I'm dumb and I really have no idea why I think that.

 

Who is the respectable bench player? Clevenger? Or did I miss another trade?

 

I was referring to Clevenger, which now that I look at his major league stats, I guess that's very debatable.

[Guest]

And that was just as cute and funny the first time you said it.

 

No cuter or funnier than saying that an actual, honest-to-goodness prospect is worth less than $1m in straight cash.

 

Let's be honest. Torreyes kinda sucks. He has the ability to make contact and, as far as I know (since I don't really know anything about his defense), literally nothing else. And that ability to make contact hasn't translated into any type of production since 2011 in 67 games in A ball.

 

Calling him an "actual honest to goodness prospect" is painting about as flattering a picture of him as one possibly could. IMO, he's more like a rich man's organizational filler than a poor man's prospect.

 

All that said, I still don't really disagree that he seems like he should be worth $800k, but I don't really know anything about making such valuations so that opinion is basically worth nothing.

Edited July 4, 2013 by David

[Guest]

I would otherwise be fine with the theory of them blowing past their spending limit, but that would mean they traded a legitimate prospect (who is 20 years old and performing adequately in AA) plus a respectable bench player, just to save some money on penalties. That would be extremely stupid, in my opinion.

 

I guess it all boils down to what Brett said. Is Torreyes worth $800k or not?

 

I think so. But I'm dumb and I really have no idea why I think that.

 

Who is the respectable bench player? Clevenger? Or did I miss another trade?

 

I was referring to Clevenger, which now that I look at his major league stats, I guess that's very debatable.

 

Yeah, I'd say so.

[wekim81]

Anyone have an opinion on Boston's IFA history:

 

http://www.soxprospects.com/international.htm

 

?

my first reaction is that site is effing awesome and i want someone to make one for the Cubs just like it.

[Guest]

If Torreyes were a 20-year-old Cuban with his skill set and no signing restrictions, he'd get something similar to Concepcion, at least. He's worth a ton more than $800k in cash.

I'm not sure how to put an exact dollar figure on it, but if Theo and Co. figure the guys they are targeting are of higher value than they guys they traded I don't think it matters what the dollar figure is. It's kind of like a futures market. I think it's a really low risk proposition if (and that's a big if) you are confident in your talent evaluation skill.

 

The thing that concerns me is the stiff penalty for next year, but I guess if they plan on using the money for trades next year it makes sense. Perhaps they can get "a guy" next year who is going to help the big club. The other thing to consider is that it may create an alternating year spend/trade cycle that may come back to bite them at some point.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I understand that Torreyes has always been a guy who provoked a wide variety of evaluations, but he's a 20-year-old in AA who appeared in multiple top-20 lists before this season. He was in no way comparable to roster fill.

[Guest]

I understand that Torreyes has always been a guy who provoked a wide variety of evaluations, but he's a 20-year-old in AA who appeared in multiple top-20 lists before this season. He was in no way comparable to roster fill.

 

they're wrong. i'm right.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I understand that Torreyes has always been a guy who provoked a wide variety of evaluations, but he's a 20-year-old in AA who appeared in multiple top-20 lists before this season. He was in no way comparable to roster fill.

 

they're wrong. i'm right.

 

Doesn't it feel good to say that once in awhile? Embrace the dark side.

[Guest]

If Torreyes were a 20-year-old Cuban with his skill set and no signing restrictions, he'd get something similar to Concepcion, at least. He's worth a ton more than $800k in cash.

 

Doubt it because of his profile. Guys who get the big money are athletic and not 5'5".

[ScrubMD]

I would otherwise be fine with the theory of them blowing past their spending limit, but that would mean they traded a legitimate prospect (who is 20 years old and performing adequately in AA) plus a respectable bench player, just to save some money on penalties. That would be extremely stupid, in my opinion.

 

I guess it all boils down to what Brett said. Is Torreyes worth $800k or not?

 

I think so. But I'm dumb and I really have no idea why I think that.

 

Who is the respectable bench player? Clevenger? Or did I miss another trade?

 

I was referring to Clevenger, which now that I look at his major league stats, I guess that's very debatable.

 

Yeah, I'd say so.

 

I guess some of his AAA performance slipped into my thinking on his major league performance.

 

But with Torreyes, I think he's easily worth more than $800k if it's just the money. With his age/peripherals, he seems to have a pretty high floor and it seems a very good bet that his major league production will end up being worth much more than $800k. If they are wanting to stay within their spending limit and it was Torreyes vs. one of their top International targets, I can give the FO the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Edited July 4, 2013 by ScrubMD

[ScrubMD]

If Torreyes were a 20-year-old Cuban with his skill set and no signing restrictions, he'd get something similar to Concepcion, at least. He's worth a ton more than $800k in cash.

I'm not sure how to put an exact dollar figure on it, but if Theo and Co. figure the guys they are targeting are of higher value than they guys they traded I don't think it matters what the dollar figure is. It's kind of like a futures market. I think it's a really low risk proposition if (and that's a big if) you are confident in your talent evaluation skill.

 

The thing that concerns me is the stiff penalty for next year, but I guess if they plan on using the money for trades next year it makes sense. Perhaps they can get "a guy" next year who is going to help the big club. The other thing to consider is that it may create an alternating year spend/trade cycle that may come back to bite them at some point.

 

But if their plan is to go over their limit, then it is just a strict dollar figure that he was traded for.

[Guest]

I know this isn't at all the place for this, but Brett's piece and all the talk about teams blowing past restrictions got me thinking.

 

The new (rule 4) draft rules stipulate that if you blow past the restrictions one year, you lose the following year's first rounder, right?

 

What other penalties are there?

 

From BA:

 

Any team that exceed their bonus pools: a 75 percent tax on a 0-5 percent overage; the loss of a first-round pick and a 75 percent tax for more than 5 and up to 10 percent; the loss of first- and second-rounders and a 100 percent tax for more than 10 and up to 15 percent; and the loss of two-first-rounders and a 100 percent tax for more than 15 percent

 

So what's to stop teams that are actually good (for which those top picks are much less valuable) from overslotting the hell out of their drafts? Can you get enough upper echelon talent in the rest of the draft to justify losing those picks if you're willing to spend the money?

 

Surrendering two first rounders is extremely crippling, even if you pick late. That said, a team is going to push past the limits in an extremely draft (a la 05 or 11) or with a generational talent who won't sign cheap (Harper, Stras, Griffey, A-Rod).

 

Another question just occurred to me. What is the penalty for those teams if they already surrendered their first rounder by signing a free agent requiring compensation?

[ctcf]

I know this isn't at all the place for this, but Brett's piece and all the talk about teams blowing past restrictions got me thinking.

 

The new (rule 4) draft rules stipulate that if you blow past the restrictions one year, you lose the following year's first rounder, right?

 

What other penalties are there?

 

From BA:

 

Any team that exceed their bonus pools: a 75 percent tax on a 0-5 percent overage; the loss of a first-round pick and a 75 percent tax for more than 5 and up to 10 percent; the loss of first- and second-rounders and a 100 percent tax for more than 10 and up to 15 percent; and the loss of two-first-rounders and a 100 percent tax for more than 15 percent

 

So what's to stop teams that are actually good (for which those top picks are much less valuable) from overslotting the hell out of their drafts? Can you get enough upper echelon talent in the rest of the draft to justify losing those picks if you're willing to spend the money?

 

Surrendering two first rounders is extremely crippling, even if you pick late. That said, a team is going to push past the limits in an extremely draft (a la 05 or 11) or with a generational talent who won't sign cheap (Harper, Stras, Griffey, A-Rod).

 

Another question just occurred to me. What is the penalty for those teams if they already surrendered their first rounder by signing a free agent requiring compensation?

 

Gotta figure it's either the next year's first rounder or their next highest pick that year. If I had to guess, I'd say it's the latter.

[Guest]

I know this isn't at all the place for this, but Brett's piece and all the talk about teams blowing past restrictions got me thinking.

 

The new (rule 4) draft rules stipulate that if you blow past the restrictions one year, you lose the following year's first rounder, right?

 

What other penalties are there?

 

From BA:

 

Any team that exceed their bonus pools: a 75 percent tax on a 0-5 percent overage; the loss of a first-round pick and a 75 percent tax for more than 5 and up to 10 percent; the loss of first- and second-rounders and a 100 percent tax for more than 10 and up to 15 percent; and the loss of two-first-rounders and a 100 percent tax for more than 15 percent

 

So what's to stop teams that are actually good (for which those top picks are much less valuable) from overslotting the hell out of their drafts? Can you get enough upper echelon talent in the rest of the draft to justify losing those picks if you're willing to spend the money?

 

Surrendering two first rounders is extremely crippling, even if you pick late. That said, a team is going to push past the limits in an extremely draft (a la 05 or 11) or with a generational talent who won't sign cheap (Harper, Stras, Griffey, A-Rod).

 

Another question just occurred to me. What is the penalty for those teams if they already surrendered their first rounder by signing a free agent requiring compensation?

 

You've already surrendered your first rounder for next year before any free agent signings can take away draft picks.

[Guest]

You've already surrendered your first rounder for next year before any free agent signings can take away draft picks.

 

D'oh. I guess I should say if you know you're likely to be signing guys that would cost you that pick.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You've already surrendered your first rounder for next year before any free agent signings can take away draft picks.

 

D'oh. I guess I should say if you know you're likely to be signing guys that would cost you that pick.

 

You can't sign a pick-tied free agent if you've already forfeited your pick, iirc.

[Guest]

You've already surrendered your first rounder for next year before any free agent signings can take away draft picks.

 

D'oh. I guess I should say if you know you're likely to be signing guys that would cost you that pick.

 

I don't the new penalties would then restrict a team in free agency (that wouldn't fly with the player's union). I imagine the team would surrender their second rounder, etc. at that point.

[ctcf]

You've already surrendered your first rounder for next year before any free agent signings can take away draft picks.

 

D'oh. I guess I should say if you know you're likely to be signing guys that would cost you that pick.

 

You can't sign a pick-tied free agent if you've already forfeited your pick, iirc.

 

There's no way that is the case.