2026 Trade deadline

[4hzglory]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Thanks for reminding me about this thread. It's rarely on my radar even when it gets bolded on my Tigers front page.

Because I'm motivated at this very minute to learn more about this very thing that I've never really looked into before, I just googled "CBT Threshold $244,000,000 penalty" and was directed to this page:

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/competitive-balance-tax

On this page it says the CBT threshold is $244 million for 2026, at which point we begin paying the tax: 20% on every dollar above that figure; an additional 12 points for every additional dollar between $20MM and $40MM over the $244MM; another 42.5 points for every thing between $40 and $60MM above the $244MM; and yet another 60 points for every dollar above $60MM above the $244MM. Rather complex, but OK, I get it.

And then, in the final paragraph, it says also that:

Clubs that are $40 million or more above the threshold shall have their highest selection in the next Rule 4 Draft moved back 10 places unless the pick falls in the top six. In that case, the team will have its second-highest selection moved back 10 places instead.

Which reads to me that the Tigers would have our draft picks pushed back if our CBT payroll exceeds $284 million, which is still $38.5-ish million above the $245.5MM Edman said we were at as of day before yesterday.

So, if I am understanding this right, it looks as though we have room to take on another $38MM+ in CBT payroll responsibility before we have to start coughing up draft pick position, meaning we don't have to worry about shaving this guy or that guy off the 40-man roster to maintain our draft pick position as currently constituted.

Am I up to date on all this? Or am I missing something?

Yes, it isn't including the fact for compensation for losing draft picks who were offered a QO falls from after the 1st round to after the 4th for all teams over the tax.  Also, no team that pays the luxury tax can get a competitive balance pick which we are in line for one after the 1st round next year (this year was after the 2nd).  The $40 mil over applies to the Mets and Dodgers this year, who dropped 10 spots.  We are not in danger of that. 

[4hzglory]

12 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

Can anyone explain where our picks would fall if  Kevin wins ROY, and we extend QO’s to Skubal, Mize and Flaherty and they all decline?

Is there a scenario where we could end up with 5-6 picks in the top 75 (including our own 1-2 rounds)?

I'll preface this by saying, this is all under the current system, which could change with the CBA.

If Kevin wins ROY, we get a pick after the 1st round.  If we are under the luxury tax, anyone we extend QO's to that decline and sign elsewhere, we get a pick after the 1st round.  If we are over the luxury tax, we get a pick after the 4th round.

If we are under the tax, we also get a comp A pick this year after the 1st round.

So if Kevin wins ROY and we offer QO's to Skubal and Mize and they sign elsewhere (I think Flaherty is a long shot), we would have 5 picks before the 2nd round (so likely in the first 40-42 picks.

If we are over the tax, we would only get 2 picks (our first and the one for McGonigle) after the 1st round.  We would then get 2 more picks after the 4th round for Skubal/Mize

[4hzglory]

7 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

Yes, it isn't including the fact for compensation for losing draft picks who were offered a QO falls from after the 1st round to after the 4th for all teams over the tax.  Also, no team that pays the luxury tax can get a competitive balance pick which we are in line for one after the 1st round next year (this year was after the 2nd).  The $40 mil over applies to the Mets and Dodgers this year, who dropped 10 spots.  We are not in danger of that. 

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/qualifying-offer

COMPENSATION FOR LOSING QUALIFIED FREE AGENT

If a team gives a qualifying offer to a player who then signs elsewhere, the club that lost the player is eligible for Draft pick compensation in the next year’s MLB Draft.

• Competitive Balance Tax payors: Receive compensation pick after the fourth round has been completed. The value of the player’s contract doesn’t matter in this case.

• Revenue-sharing recipients: Receive compensation pick between the first round and Competitive Balance Round A if the lost player signs for at least $50 million. If the player signs for less than $50 million, the compensation pick comes after Competitive Balance Round B.

[chasfh]

6 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

Yes, it isn't including the fact for compensation for losing draft picks who were offered a QO falls from after the 1st round to after the 4th for all teams over the tax.  Also, no team that pays the luxury tax can get a competitive balance pick which we are in line for one after the 1st round next year (this year was after the 2nd).  The $40 mil over applies to the Mets and Dodgers this year, who dropped 10 spots.  We are not in danger of that. 

So, we lost a draft pick who we offered a qualifying offer to, and one of our picks goes from the 1st round to the 4th round as a result, which isn't an actual lost pick; plus, if we go over the $244MM by even a penny we will lose an actual pick (the competitive balance pick)? Do I have that straight?

[4hzglory]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

So, we lost a draft pick who we offered a qualifying offer to, and one of our picks goes from the 1st round to the 4th round as a result, which isn't an actual lost pick; plus, if we go over the $244MM by even a penny we will lose an actual pick (the competitive balance pick)? Do I have that straight?

If we go over the $244 by a penny, we lose our competitive balance pick and whoever we offered a QO to that signs elsewhere (If it would be Skubal and Mize it would be 2), the pick we would get back would drop from the 1st roudn to the 4th round, which yes, isn't a lost pick, but costs multiple millions in draft pool $. 

 

The 37th pick this year for example had a $2.7 mil value where the last 4th round pick had a $558K slot value, so the drop from the first to 4th would cost over $4 mil in draft pool $ and the competitive balance pick lost would be another $2.7 mil ish.  So somewhere in the neighborhood of $6.5-7 million in draft pool $ would be lost.  (Plus around $500K International $)

[4hzglory]

10 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

If we go over the $244 by a penny, we lose our competitive balance pick and whoever we offered a QO to that signs elsewhere (If it would be Skubal and Mize it would be 2), the pick we would get back would drop from the 1st roudn to the 4th round, which yes, isn't a lost pick, but costs multiple millions in draft pool $. 

 

The 37th pick this year for example had a $2.7 mil value where the last 4th round pick had a $558K slot value, so the drop from the first to 4th would cost over $4 mil in draft pool $ and the competitive balance pick lost would be another $2.7 mil ish.  So somewhere in the neighborhood of $6.5-7 million in draft pool $ would be lost.  (Plus around $500K International $)

For comparison, our total pool this year was $9,165,000.  If we ended up with 5 picks prior to the first round, we would very likely end up over $20 mil next year.  That's a lot of $ to sign higher end talent.

Edited July 16 by 4hzglory

[Edman85]

I need to get 100% confirmation on this, but...

If the Tigers pick up Jansen's option (not likely), they would get a refund on any tax moneys as a result of the $2M, but I don't believe they get back any draft penalties.

[4hzglory]

15 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

I need to get 100% confirmation on this, but...

If the Tigers pick up Jansen's option (not likely), they would get a refund on any tax moneys as a result of the $2M, but I don't believe they get back any draft penalties.

And personally, I could care less about the tax moneys, it's the draft penalties that are the big deal this year.

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, 4hzglory said:

... So if Kevin ... we would have 5 picks before the 2nd round (so likely in the first 40-42 picks).

If we are over the tax, we would only get 2 picks after the 1st round.  We would then get 2 more picks after the 4th round for Skubal/Mize

The difference between these two, IMO, is far, FAR too valuable to risk being over the tax threshold.

At least one move needs to be made to assure that we are under the tax this year.

My 2 cents.

[Edman85]

3 hours ago, Tenacious D said:

Can anyone explain where our picks would fall if  Kevin wins ROY, and we extend QO’s to Skubal, Mize and Flaherty and they all decline?

Is there a scenario where we could end up with 5-6 picks in the top 75 (including our own 1-2 rounds)?

1st Round pick... Eligible for the lottery (top 6) if we don't make the playoffs. If we make the playoffs, it depends on what round and who else loses in that round, but the further they go, the further back they draft.  Assuming the rules stay the same, some teams way over the cap will move back 10 spots (Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Phillies, Blue Jays as of now). 

Then you have the PPI picks. This is the pick if McGonigle gets the ROY. Probably about 30th.

Then free agent compensation picks for revenue sharing recipients that offer a QO. These are the picks we would get for Skubal, Mize, and Flaherty (if he keeps it up?) if we stay under the tax. 35thish...

Then the Competitive Balance picks. So 40thish? This goes away if over the tax.

Then second round... 45-70ish. A lot of these get forfeited.

Then Competitive Balance B.

Then free agent compensation for teams that pay revenue sharing but are under the tax.

Then the third round.

Then the fourth round.

Then free agent compensation for teams that are over the tax. This is where Mize, Skubal, and Flaherty net picks if over the tax.

Edited July 16 by Edman85

[Tiger337]

I am glad there are people here to provide this information.  It seems like at around age 60, it has become harder to keep this kind of information in my brain.  Logical and analytical thought is still strong, but the ability to keep these facts in my memory is getting more difficult.  The processor is fine, but the memory is limited! 

[NorthWoods]

21 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I am glad there are people here to provide this information.  It seems like at around age 60, it has become harder to keep this kind of information in my brain.  Logical and analytical thought is still strong, but the ability to keep these facts in my memory is getting more difficult.  The processor is fine, but the memory is limited! 

Memory and ability to focus.   I can lock in for much shorter periods of time.   It sucks getting old, but as we've all heard the alternative is worse.

[4hzglory]

40 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I am glad there are people here to provide this information.  It seems like at around age 60, it has become harder to keep this kind of information in my brain.  Logical and analytical thought is still strong, but the ability to keep these facts in my memory is getting more difficult.  The processor is fine, but the memory is limited! 

I definitely understand, and I'm 8 years from 60.  For some reason, certain things I'm good at remembering, but then when my wife asks me to do something, I had better have a written note and a reminder alert on my phone, or I'm likely to forget.

[Shelton]

1 hour ago, Edman85 said:

1st Round pick... Eligible for the lottery (top 6) if we don't make the playoffs. If we make the playoffs, it depends on what round and who else loses in that round, but the further they go, the further back they draft.  Assuming the rules stay the same, some teams way over the cap will move back 10 spots (Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Phillies, Blue Jays as of now). 

Then you have the PPI picks. This is the pick if McGonigle gets the ROY. Probably about 30th.

Then free agent compensation picks for revenue sharing recipients that offer a QO. These are the picks we would get for Skubal, Mize, and Flaherty (if he keeps it up?) if we stay under the tax. 35thish...

Then the Competitive Balance picks. So 40thish? This goes away if over the tax.

Then second round... 45-70ish. A lot of these get forfeited.

Then Competitive Balance B.

Then free agent compensation for teams that pay revenue sharing but are under the tax.

Then the third round.

Then the fourth round.

Then free agent compensation for teams that are over the tax. This is where Mize, Skubal, and Flaherty net picks if over the tax.

Also worth noting that the high comp pick for losing a QO guy requires the new contract to be more than 50. In Skubal’s case that’s obvious. And probably a safe bet that Mize would sign for 50+ (although if teams are still penalized by losing picks to sign QO guys, you never know). Would Flaherty sign for 50+ with a loss of picks attached?

The tax thing to me is all about the Comp A pick and the Skubal comp pick. My gut tells me that Mize will be back with the tigers, and that Jack would accept a QO if offered. 

[chasfh]

36 minutes ago, NorthWoods said:

Memory and ability to focus.   I can lock in for much shorter periods of time.   It sucks getting old, but as we've all heard the alternative is worse.

That depends on the quality of your getting old.

[chasfh]

Just now, Shelton said:

The tax thing to me is all about the Comp A pick and the Skubal comp pick. My gut tells me that Mize will be back with the tigers, and that Jack would accept a QO if offered. 

I don't know, there's a bit of a history between the team and Mize. I think if he gets at least a halfway decent offer from a team with a chance, he might take that.

[4hzglory]

2 minutes ago, Shelton said:

 

The tax thing to me is all about the Comp A pick and the Skubal comp pick. My gut tells me that Mize will be back with the tigers, and that Jack would accept a QO if offered. 

I pretty much agree with this.  I'm hoping Mize is back, and I think it would be almost a guarantee that Jack would accept.  So if that happens, we are talking about a pick around 30 and a pick around 35-40ish.  Which would also equate to around $6 mil in pool money.  (And add on the International $500K pool difference for taxpayers vs revenue sharing recepients.)

[Shelton]

Just now, chasfh said:

I don't know, there's a bit of a history between the team and Mize. I think if he gets at least a halfway decent offer from a team with a chance, he might take that.

He doesn’t have the greatest track record, though. I guess it depends how confident he is that he will get that other offer. I don’t think it’s a given that he even declines the QO. 
 

But that’s why I said it was a gut feeling. I’m trying to recall what this history is, and best I can remember he didn’t like being put on the 60 day last season, and they also were close to going to an arbitration hearing. Is there something else? 

[4hzglory]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don't know, there's a bit of a history between the team and Mize. I think if he gets at least a halfway decent offer from a team with a chance, he might take that.

I could be wrong, but I think that is potentially more fan speculation than reality.  I think if $ are the same, he stays. 

[Shelton]

All this said, I do think Scotty deserves some blame for allowing the payroll to approach the limit. There were plenty of ways to end up at 240 instead of 244. One of these was not gambling on the Skubal arbitration. Even if Boras and Skubal were going to trial no matter what, you could have gone against the MLB recommendation and offered the higher midpoint number, if only to make sure they didn’t end up against the tax limit if they lost. 
 

The counter to that is the number of injuries this year is so high that even a conservative projection wouldn’t have them adding as much extra salary as they have had to. 

[chasfh]

5 minutes ago, Shelton said:

He doesn’t have the greatest track record, though. I guess it depends how confident he is that he will get that other offer. I don’t think it’s a given that he even declines the QO. 
 

But that’s why I said it was a gut feeling. I’m trying to recall what this history is, and best I can remember he didn’t like being put on the 60 day last season, and they also were close to going to an arbitration hearing. Is there something else? 

The arb hearing a couple years ago where they were so close on their numbers, Mize at $840K and the Tigers at 4815K; the resolved it with a compromise of $830K with a $3MM club option with a $10K buyout, an option the Tigers declined. It was kind of bad optics and maybe made the Tigers seem petty to go to the mat over a mere $25K. That was expressed by a lot of posters here at the time, that the then-newish Tiger front office were cheap-asses playing unnecessary hardball with players, implication being they might drive away players in the future because players don’t want to play for a cheap-ass hardballing front office.I guess we'll see whether that left a mark on him.

[chasfh]

23 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

I could be wrong, but I think that is potentially more fan speculation than reality.  I think if $ are the same, he stays. 

Maybe. I don't know anything inside about it one way or the other.

[4hzglory]

4 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The arb hearing a couple years ago where they were so close on their numbers, Mize at $840K and the Tigers at 4815K; the resolved it with a compromise of $830K with a $3MM club option with a $10K buyout, an option the Tigers declined. It was kind of bad optics and maybe made the Tigers seem petty to go to the mat over a mere $25K. That was expressed by a lot of posters here at the time, that the then-newish Tiger front office were cheap-asses playing unnecessary hardball with players, implication being they might drive away players in the future because players don’t want to play for a cheap-ass hardballing front office.I guess we'll see whether that left a mark on him.

I do know that neither party knows the exact number the other is filing for until it's done.  They were likely in negotiations prior and didn't come to the agreement in time on the option.  Optics make it look worse than it probably was in reality.

 

[4hzglory]

8 minutes ago, Shelton said:

All this said, I do think Scotty deserves some blame for allowing the payroll to approach the limit. There were plenty of ways to end up at 240 instead of 244. One of these was not gambling on the Skubal arbitration. Even if Boras and Skubal were going to trial no matter what, you could have gone against the MLB recommendation and offered the higher midpoint number, if only to make sure they didn’t end up against the tax limit if they lost. 
 

The counter to that is the number of injuries this year is so high that even a conservative projection wouldn’t have them adding as much extra salary as they have had to. 

100%.  Filing arbitration on Skubal at $22 mil instead of $19 could have very easily switched who won the hearing as the mid point would have been $27 million instead of $25.5 million making the luxury tax a non-issue.  

But like you said, the number of injuries cost them multiple millions against the luxury tax number beyond what could have realistically been expected in January/February.  

[gehringer_2]

5 hours ago, chasfh said:

Setting aside whatever Machiavelli might have to do with this 🤷🏼‍♂️, 

Machievelli's advice to the prince was that you can get away with doing wildly unpopular things if you get them over with quickly because if the strategy works out, the populace will forget their initial anger.