Hunter Harvey to Royals

[Chicago White Sox]

 

[Chicago White Sox]

This would have been an insane return for Kopech who are both controllable through 2025, have similar fastball velocities (although Kopech kills him in Stuff+), but Michael has a slightly better xERA.

[ChiSox59]

2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

This would have been an insane return for Kopech who are both controllable through 2025, have similar fastball velocities (although Kopech kills him in Stuff+), but Michael has a slightly better xERA.

Very good sign for Kopech and the trade market in general 

[ptatc]

25 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

This would have been an insane return for Kopech who are both controllable through 2025, have similar fastball velocities (although Kopech kills him in Stuff+), but Michael has a slightly better xERA.

From what everyone is saying about the draft, this is not the draft to get extra picks.

[Chicago White Sox]

13 minutes ago, ptatc said:

From what everyone is saying about the draft, this is not the draft to get extra picks.

Then was trading Santos to Mariners a bad move because right that extra pick looks the most promising of the three assets we got?

[ptatc]

Just now, Chicago White Sox said:

Then was trading Santos to Mariners a bad move because right that extra pick looks the most promising of the three assets we got?

When you make the trade you get whatever value you can. It just seems like a poor focus to do right before the draft.

[Chicago White Sox]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

When you make the trade you get whatever value you can. It just seems like a poor focus to do right before the draft.

Seems like the perfect time to trade for a draft pick since you now know who might be available when and for how much.  And I get it’s a bad draft, but that doesn’t mean talent won’t be available at #39.  That $2.4M in slot value the pick comes with would allow us to a lot of cool stuff with five picks we’d theoretically in the top 78.

Obviously it all comes down to the cost, but an org top 5 prospect and the #39 pick (even a bad draft) seems like an absolutely incredible outcome in a Kopech trade.

[GreenSox]

The Royals number two prospect and a pic for a pretty good reliever. At that price, Feddy should be worth 2 Norbys and a Bievers.

Of course, that price might encourage teams on the fence to put pitchers on the market.

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Seems like the perfect time to trade for a draft pick since you now know who might be available when and for how much.  And I get it’s a bad draft, but that doesn’t mean talent won’t be available at #39.  That $2.4M in slot value the pick comes with would allow us to a lot of cool stuff with five picks we’d theoretically in the top 78.

Obviously it all comes down to the cost, but an org top 5 prospect and the #39 pick (even a bad draft) seems like an absolutely incredible outcome in a Kopech trade.

I would disagree. Take a prospect instead when you know the draft is weak. But maybe that's all they could get so it's acceptable. 

[WestEddy]

11 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Then was trading Santos to Mariners a bad move because right that extra pick looks the most promising of the three assets we got?

I think, in referring to it as a weak draft, they're talking about elite talent. There's always guys with tools that can be developed. But none the top 5-7 really stand out as sure-fire, perennial all-star talent. 

I look at a draft like 2016. Players were drafted who became very productive major leaguers (Will Smith, Bryan Reynolds, Pete Alonzo, Bo Bichette), but the top guys were kind of inflated beyond their ability. 

[GreenSox]

23 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Then was trading Santos to Mariners a bad move because right that extra pick looks the most promising of the three assets we got?

Based on how it looks today, yeah, it doesn’t look like a particularly good trade. I figured that pic was worth like a 10 to 15 ranked prospect. The prospects were iffy to begin with. 

it may not be the best year to acquire pics, but the nationals made a really good trade.

[Chicago White Sox]

7 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

I think, in referring to it as a weak draft, they're talking about elite talent. There's always guys with tools that can be developed. But none the top 5-7 really stand out as sure-fire, perennial all-star talent. 

I look at a draft like 2016. Players were drafted who became very productive major leaguers (Will Smith, Bryan Reynolds, Pete Alonzo, Bo Bichette), but the top guys were kind of inflated beyond their ability. 

It’s both weak at the top and also has a massive dropoff after the top 10 to 15 players.  But there is a lot of good HS arms and having $2.4M in additional slot and the #39 would allow us to be more aggressive in that area.  A guy like Ryan Sloan probably becomes a much more realistic target with those extra dollars and that’s a super exciting addition at the cost of Kopech (but maybe I’m biased here).

[Y2Jimmy0]

45 minutes ago, ptatc said:

From what everyone is saying about the draft, this is not the draft to get extra picks.

It’s a great trade. Not even about the player at 39. That pick is worth $2.4 million. The Nats pick 10th because of the same rule prohibiting the Sox next year. In theory, they could float Chase Burns or Hagen Smith down to 10th overall now with your extra $$. That’s why it’s a valuable trade 

[ptatc]

15 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

It’s a great trade. Not even about the player at 39. That pick is worth $2.4 million. The Nats pick 10th because of the same rule prohibiting the Sox next year. In theory, they could float Chase Burns or Hagen Smith down to 10th overall now with your extra $$. That’s why it’s a valuable trade 

That makes sense. Not so much the player but the slot money.

[GreenSox]

23 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

It’s a great trade. Not even about the player at 39. That pick is worth $2.4 million. The Nats pick 10th because of the same rule prohibiting the Sox next year. In theory, they could float Chase Burns or Hagen Smith down to 10th overall now with your extra $$. That’s why it’s a valuable trade 

This probably isn't the thread for this discussion, but I just don't see how a college player like Smith or Burns has any leverage to demand overslot.  They have a lot more to lose than to gain if the drafting team holds firm.

Edited July 14 by GreenSox

[Y2Jimmy0]

4 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

This probably isn't the thread for this discussion, but I just don't see how a college player like Smith or Burns has any leverage to demand overslot.  They have a lot more to lose than to gain if the drafting team holds firm.

If an advisor tells the teams with picks 6-9 that they aren’t signing for slot, those teams will pass and take someone else. Nats can pay more than the slot values at 6-9 pretty easily. 

[GreenSox]

28 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

If an advisor tells the teams with picks 6-9 that they aren’t signing for slot, those teams will pass and take someone else. Nats can pay more than the slot values at 6-9 pretty easily. 

Well the Nationals would have to throw away a pick to do that, just like the teams that passed on him could have done if they chose to.  There is some cognitive dissonance aspect as it may not feel like you're throwing away a pick due to the way you acquired it and feeling like it's kind of a "bonus pick."

Anyway, unless it's a really stacked draft, I think a college player would be nuts to do that.

[Y2Jimmy0]

10 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

Well the Nationals would have to throw away a pick to do that, just like the teams that passed on him could have done if they chose to.  There is some cognitive dissonance aspect as it may not feel like you're throwing away a pick due to the way you acquired it and feeling like it's kind of a "bonus pick."

Anyway, unless it's a really stacked draft, I think a college player would be nuts to do that.

I still don’t think you understand how this all works and I try and explain this every year. 

[GreenSox]

1 hour ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I still don’t think you understand how this all works and I try and explain this every year. 

I think I understand fine. If you are paying more than the slot value of your draft position, you have to make it up by either a) paying underslot on later picks (aka punting) or b) pay a tax. And I’m not sure the extent which b) is allowed.

The nationals just got an extra pick which has its own slot value. If they want to use that slot value to pay over slot in round one, that’s fine; but they will still have to make up for it by going under slot somewhere later in the draft, whether it’s the extra comp pick they got or a different pick. 
The extra pic may make it cognitively easier, but they still have to punt something

 

Edited July 14 by GreenSox

[Y2Jimmy0]

7 hours ago, GreenSox said:

I think I understand fine. If you are paying more than the slot value of your draft position, you have to make it up by either a) paying underslot on later picks (aka punting) or b) pay a tax. And I’m not sure the extent which b) is allowed.

The nationals just got an extra pick which has its own slot value. If they want to use that slot value to pay over slot in round one, that’s fine; but they will still have to make up for it by going under slot somewhere later in the draft, whether it’s the extra comp pick they got or a different pick. 
The extra pic may make it cognitively easier, but they still have to punt something

 

It’s not necessarily punting though. Especially in a bad draft class. 

[Squirmin' for Yermin]

Amazing trade for them. I’d have loved to have done this with someone..