Signing a free agent and losing a draft pick

[Scooterfletcher]

If some of these remaining guys with draft compensation tied to them are finding a tougher market than expected, is this the year to try and sign one given we have so many picks and would still have a strong draft if we lose a pick?  
 

I’m thinking Santander would be perfect for us and even a guy like Pivetta on a 3-4 year deal that we can handle would really help this team.   If teams are shying away from a few of these guys due in part to the draft compensation tied to them, we might be able to sign one at a price we kinda like.   I’m just bringing up these two names but really any of the guys tied to compensation id be interested in.

 

On a secondary note that maybe isn’t for this particular forum, we get draft pool money based on how many picks we have, correct?   And if we don’t for example sign our own second round pick this draft, we get it back in 2026 correct?  If the answer to both of these is yes as I think it is, would it not be wise to draft an unsignable guy with our second round pick since we will have so much draft pool money and really go after high end guys with all our other top 3 round picks since draft pool money doesn’t change and we can essentially “bank” (in this scenario our own second round pick) for 2026?   Seems like a really smart strategy to me but maybe not.   Thoughts?

[CheeseheadInQC]

1 minute ago, Scooterfletcher said:

On a secondary note that maybe isn’t for this particular forum, we get draft pool money based on how many picks we have, correct?   And if we don’t for example sign our own second round pick this draft, we get it back in 2026 correct?  If the answer to both of these is yes as I think it is, would it not be wise to draft an unsignable guy with our second round pick since we will have so much draft pool money and really go after high end guys with all our other top 3 round picks since draft pool money doesn’t change and we can essentially “bank” (in this scenario our own second round pick) for 2026?   Seems like a really smart strategy to me but maybe not.   Thoughts?

Yes, yes and no, and no.

Each pick in the first 10 rounds has a set value. The Brewers would get the pick in 2026 unless, I believe, it was the Levonas one because unless they changed it you can’t carry over a pick twice in a row.

The issue is, not signing that player shrinks your bonus pool by the amount assigned to the pick. The Brewers couldn’t allocate the money assigned to that second round pick elsewhere last year. They just lost it. That is why you always see the slot or below slot guys sign first to avoid issues where a guy you were counting on to sign $100,000 under slot doesn’t sign and now you are facing penalties.

[Scooterfletcher]

I thought when Levonas didn’t sign that we had extra money and were begging some guys we drafted that were maybe planning on going back to college to take it?    Maybe I remembered wrongly.   

[nate82]

From what I have heard the Brewers (Mark A) would sign a player if it costs them a draft pick but only for the right player.  Santander is not that. 

[CheezWizHed]

18 minutes ago, Scooterfletcher said:

I thought when Levonas didn’t sign that we had extra money and were begging some guys we drafted that were maybe planning on going back to college to take it?    Maybe I remembered wrongly.   

The slot value of the pick was lost when he didn't sign.  But since they saved money on other picks to sign Levonas to an over-slot value, all that over-slot money was available to sign other picks.  

[Brewcrew82]

35 minutes ago, nate82 said:

From what I have heard the Brewers (Mark A) would sign a player if it costs them a draft pick but only for the right player.  Santander is not that. 

Are the supposed payroll restrictions due to the TV situation real? Or are they more waiting out the market and ready to strike if the right opportunity arises? 

[nate82]

Just now, Brewcrew82 said:

Are the supposed payroll restrictions due to the TV situation real? Or are they more waiting out the market and ready to strike if the right opportunity arises? 

From the people I have talked to they don't really have information on this.  MLB has been very tight lipped on this and I think the teams don't know for 100% sure how much they will be getting from MLB yet either.  Well the teams know they will be getting less than what their contracts were previously paying them. 

The Brewers are fine paying a lot for a player in FA if it means it is a short term contract.  Last year they kind of went away from this with Hoskins.  Mark A has also said in the past that they will increase the budget if it makes sense.  They have only done that a few times since Mark A has taken over and almost went over by a lot if Darvish would have signed along with Cain. 

[wibadgers23]

19 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Are the supposed payroll restrictions due to the TV situation real? Or are they more waiting out the market and ready to strike if the right opportunity arises? 

I also wonder if the Brewers just genuinely like their roster as it currently stands and don't feel the need to spend big in free agency?  The biggest need on the team is either a SS or 3B to replace Adames and that market is pretty bare in terms of free agency anyway.

[wibadgers23]

7 minutes ago, nate82 said:

They have only done that a few times since Mark A has taken over and almost went over by a lot if Darvish would have signed along with Cain. 

They almost signed Darvish that year too?

[nate82]

Just now, wibadgers23 said:

They almost signed Darvish that year too?

Yes, the Brewers came in second to the Cubs on the Darvish sweepstakes that year. 

[DR28]

36 minutes ago, nate82 said:

Yes, the Brewers came in second to the Cubs on the Darvish sweepstakes that year. 

Wow! Never knew that!

[NOMAAM]

Bergman would be the only guy out there.  Alonso if Hoskins wasn’t on the team as well.