2018/2019 Offseason Thread

[lou]

Is Baltimore losing their IFA money or does it roll forward?

[rmc523]

Is Baltimore losing their IFA money or does it roll forward?

I think it expires at whatever date and resets whenever the next year starts (I don't know if that's January 1, or if there's a different period for IFA money)

- - - - - - - - - -

I found this:

http://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactio...nus-pool-money

As per the 2017-21 Collective Bargaining Agreement, clubs are each subject to a spending cap for amateur international free agents. Each club will have at least a $4.75 million bonus pool to spend, with those that have a pick in Competitive Balance Round A receiving $5.25 million and those with a pick in Competitive Balance Round B receiving $5.75 million.

Clubs will be able to acquire up to 75 percent of their initial international bonus pool money in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 signing periods and up to 60 percent of their initial pools in subsequent signing periods. This means that a club with an initial pool of $5.75 million can increase its pool total via trade to approximately $10.1 million during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 signing periods. The 2017-21 CBA also allows international funds to be traded more freely, as teams must now simply trade international money in increments of $250,000, unless they have less than $250,000 remaining in their pool. Under the 2012-16 CBA, teams were assigned four tradeable "slots" with different values designated for each slot. The money was able to be traded only in those increments.

Beginning in the 2017-18 offseason, any team that is over the luxury tax threshold and signs a Major League free agent that has rejected a qualifying offer will lose $1 million from their international signing pool in the following signing period. A team that is not over the luxury tax would only forfeit $500,000 of its signing pool in the subsequent period.

Each year's international signing period begins July 2 and continues through June 15 of the following year.

[fish16]

ya there is no rollover there. they are a trainwreck who was like 40+ games under the entire year and didnt make any plans for their future and it cost them big time.

[rmc523]

ya there is no rollover there. they are a trainwreck who was like 40+ games under the entire year and didnt make any plans for their future and it cost them big time.

They did trade several players for prospects...

[fish16]

They did trade several players for prospects...

That is true but they also gave away players like gausman for IFA money that they didn’t end up using. Just seemingly operating without a plan and without someone to orchestrate any plan

[lou]

Yikes. So Baltimore legitimately should be overpaying FV40 guys just to sign them and hope they land a diamond. That's super shitty.

Glad this worked out for the Marlins. What did this end up being:

Marlins IFA money, Barraclough, Lillie, and the two guys traded to Houston, for VVM and Mesa Jr.? Is it safe to say those later 2 are FV50 and FV40 prospects?

That's not, in a vacuum, the best overall move, it's probably neutral on a valuation level. This is a low floor deal though. If they get 5 WAR out of those two during just their club controlled years, they'll have done fine as long as no one else becomes a star, let alone if VVM becomes a good 2.5-3 WAR starter like Anderson they'll make a huge profit.

Guess we'll see. I think we'll end up liking this one in 3 years but who knows.

[tjfla]

Is Baltimore losing their IFA money or does it roll forward?

IFA Pool Cash expires June 15 every year. July 2-June 15 then closed period till July 2

Again its NOT really "cash". MLB sends out a list of what teams can spend and teams can spend up to that amount unless they trade for more

[lou]

IFA Pool Cash expires June 15 every year. July 2-June 15 then closed period till July 2

Again its NOT really "cash". MLB sends out a list of what teams can spend and teams can spend up to that amount unless they trade for more

Sure, it's an asset, not a cash. It's as someone pointed out, they traded Gausman for it and are doing nothing. That's terrible for Baltimore. Imagine what would be going on here if the Marlins lost VVM to Baltimore and Gaston to TB?

Anyways, who cares. Marlins got there guy and hopefully he is a 2+ WAR starter at minimum for the 6-7 years they control him at the MLB level. That's a great acquisition if so.

On to Realmuto.

[fish16]

Sure, it's an asset, not a cash. It's as someone pointed out, they traded Gausman for it and are doing nothing. That's terrible for Baltimore. Imagine what would be going on here if the Marlins lost VVM to Baltimore and Gaston to TB?

Anyways, who cares. Marlins got there guy and hopefully he is a 2+ WAR starter at minimum for the 6-7 years they control him at the MLB level. That's a great acquisition if so.

On to Realmuto.

It would be somewhat the equivalent of us trading Urena for IFA cash and then not using the IFA cash.

[tjfla]

[QUOTE=lou;394985]Sure, it's an asset, not a cash. It's as someone pointed out, they traded Gausman for it and are doing nothing. That's terrible for Baltimore. Imagine what would be going on here if the Marlins lost VVM to Baltimore and Gaston to TB?

Anyways, who cares. Marlins got there guy and hopefully he is a 2+ WAR starter at minimum for the 6-7 years they control him at the MLB level. That's a great acquisition if so.

On to Realmuto.[/QUOTE]

Yep and sounds like they are gonna make an offer next week

They wanna know by the meetings so they can start talking to teams. Already been scouting Wash/Col/Ariz prospects in AFL

[rmc523]

That is true but they also gave away players like gausman for IFA money that they didn’t end up using. Just seemingly operating without a plan and without someone to orchestrate any plan

We all know the Orioles are a rudderless ship right now, but I don't get the mega criticism you're throwing their way. The Marlins could have just as easily been in the same boat if the Mesas and/or Gaston had chosen to go elsewhere - made all these moves to get money, then can't use it because they guy(s) won't sign with you.

[tjfla]

We all know the Orioles are a rudderless ship right now, but I don't get the mega criticism you're throwing their way. The Marlins could have just as easily been in the same boat if the Mesas and/or Gaston had chosen to go elsewhere - made all these moves to get money, then can't use it because they guy(s) won't sign with you.

Miami made the moves because they were told that if they got the cash the Mesas would sign with us. After the showcase-Anthony told us that if we got the cash then they are ours which is why we made the moves.
Baltimore made the moves without knowning anything

[rmc523]

Miami made the moves because they were told that if they got the cash the Mesas would sign with us. After the showcase-Anthony told us that if we got the cash then they are ours which is why we made the moves.
Baltimore made the moves without knowning anything

I get that. The point is, at the time, it was a good move for Baltimore to build up their IFA pool, and had they gotten one or more of the guys, nobody would've batted an eye. We swooped in and took the rug out from under them. My point is just that hindsight is 20/20.

[Lee Stone]

I get that. The point is, at the time, it was a good move for Baltimore to build up their IFA pool, and had they gotten one or more of the guys, nobody would've batted an eye. We swooped in and took the rug out from under them. My point is just that hindsight is 20/20.

What rug was that? The Marlins paid $5M plus and a number of players for just another prospect with a 50 scouting grade - the Marlins now have 16 such prospects, almost all acquired for much less than VV.

[rmc523]

What rug was that? The Marlins paid $5M plus and a number of players for just another prospect with a 50 scouting grade - the Marlins now have 16 such prospects, almost all acquired for much less than VV.

You're completely missing the point.