Abolish FA Draft Pick Compensation?

[Outshined_One]

This has been a very strange offseason to me. There have been a number of free agents on the market who are still out there, despite being talented and worth a good contract. I've seen speculation here and on other boards that the reason for this is because teams are unwilling to give up draft picks as compensation.

 

So, I have a few questions. Should the current system of draft compensation for free agents be abolished? Should it be modified? Or would you keep it the same?

 

I'm curious to see what everyone else has to say.

[anabiono]

i thought the compensation was in place to somewhat provide a balance in the league because of the wide margin of difference between team budgets?

[CubinNY]

Abolish it. If the team is not intending to offer a contract, trade the guy or risk loosing him for nothing.

 

I've never really understood it in baseball since the draft is such a crapshoot anyway.

[jersey cubs fan]

I guess it could be adjusted, but it shouldn't be abolished. In a non-cap sport, small market teams have no way of competing with any sort of regularity unless they can get help via the draft. So perhaps you can remove the idea of losing a 1st round pick for a player, make it 2nd and 3rds. But before this seaosn, this never stopped teams. Hell, the Cubs lost picks signing middle relievers. This offseason is weird because of the economy, plain and simple.

[TruffleShuffle]

I guess it could be adjusted, but it shouldn't be abolished. In a non-cap sport, small market teams have no way of competing with any sort of regularity unless they can get help via the draft. So perhaps you can remove the idea of losing a 1st round pick for a player, make it 2nd and 3rds. But before this seaosn, this never stopped teams. Hell, the Cubs lost picks signing middle relievers. This offseason is weird because of the economy, plain and simple.

 

yeah i would get rid of losing the first round pick except when you sign elite players. the problem is the guys who get rated as type A free agents but really aren't that great. just taking a look at the 2006 draft, here are the guys that caused teams to lose first round draft picks:

 

Billy Wagner

Tom Gordon

Esteban Loaiza

Paul Byrd

Jeff Weaver

Johnny Damon

 

so not only are teams getting a late first round pick but they're also getting a first round pick. i'd sure as hell let tom gordon walk and take the two early picks rather than sign a late 30s reliever for a free-market price.

 

you shouldn't lose a first round pick for signing paul byrd or esteban loiaza. that system is dumb.

[BigbadB]

I've never liked the rating system. A better system might be where a player ranks among their own roster when the season ends. In other words, how much is the team that is losing that player affected by the loss of said player. Service time with that team could also be factored in.

 

Looking at Sabathia as an example, would Milwaukee have traded for Sabathia knowing that they wouldn't get compensation for him if he left at season's end?

 

An argument can be made that he ended up being their best player even in a short season role with the team. But, his lack of service time with that team would negate draft pick compensation.

 

MLB or Elias could go in at the end of each season and rank each player on the roster 1-25 (free agent or not). Players who are in the top 5 would receive draft pick compensation similar to the current "A" picks. Players who are in the 6-10 range would be "B" players where teams get compensation based on the current "B" picks. Everyone below that would get nothing.

 

In this case, Juan Cruz would probably not be an "A". Webb, Haren, C. Jackson, Drew and Young would be a top 5 example. Randy Johnson, Adam Dunn, Hudson, Lyon and Reynolds would probably fall into the 6-10 range, making Cruz a non draft pick compensation signing.

 

I don't know. Maybe something like that wouldn't work either. I just hate the current ranking system.

[TruffleShuffle]

I've never liked the rating system. A better system might be where a player ranks among their own roster when the season ends. In other words, how much is the team that is losing that player affected by the loss of said player. Service time with that team could also be factored in.

 

Looking at Sabathia as an example, would Milwaukee have traded for Sabathia knowing that they wouldn't get compensation for him if he left at season's end?

 

An argument can be made that he ended up being their best player even in a short season role with the team. But, his lack of service time with that team would negate draft pick compensation.

 

MLB or Elias could go in at the end of each season and rank each player on the roster 1-25 (free agent or not). Players who are in the top 5 would receive draft pick compensation similar to the current "A" picks. Players who are in the 6-10 range would be "B" players where teams get compensation based on the current "B" picks. Everyone below that would get nothing.

 

In this case, Juan Cruz would probably not be an "A". Webb, Haren, C. Jackson, Drew and Young would be a top 5 example. Randy Johnson, Adam Dunn, Hudson, Lyon and Reynolds would probably fall into the 6-10 range, making Cruz a non draft pick compensation signing.

 

I don't know. Maybe something like that wouldn't work either. I just hate the current ranking system.

 

i also think there should be an exception for guys traded within the last year - the brewers should not get compensation for losing sabathia IMO.

[jersey cubs fan]

I've never liked the rating system.

 

I don't know. Maybe something like that wouldn't work either. I just hate the current ranking system.

 

i also think there should be an exception for guys traded within the last year - the brewers should not get compensation for losing sabathia IMO.

 

I disagree. That allows small market teams the opportunity to contend now, while rebuilding for the future as well. It's a fairly large incentive for those teams to make the "go for it" trades that can excite the team and keep fan interest high in what is otherwise a non-entity. It needs to be adjusted, but taking away such an important thing for teams like Oakland, Milwaukee, Minnesota etc, that can't justify spending $100m on individual players, or trading away prospects for superstars, would be a big mistake.

[BigbadB]

I've never liked the rating system.

 

I don't know. Maybe something like that wouldn't work either. I just hate the current ranking system.

 

i also think there should be an exception for guys traded within the last year - the brewers should not get compensation for losing sabathia IMO.

 

I disagree. That allows small market teams the opportunity to contend now, while rebuilding for the future as well. It's a fairly large incentive for those teams to make the "go for it" trades that can excite the team and keep fan interest high in what is otherwise a non-entity. It needs to be adjusted, but taking away such an important thing for teams like Oakland, Milwaukee, Minnesota etc, that can't justify spending $100m on individual players, or trading away prospects for superstars, would be a big mistake.

 

Fair enough. Remove the service time clause, and I think I like my plan better than the current plan. With my plan, you can also remove the arbitration clause. Just award the team losing one of their best players, period. If it's a given that these smaller market teams NEED compensation for players they are going to lose and can't afford to offer arbitration to, then make it mandatory that teams that sign them lose the picks to the teams losing the player.

 

Take the gamble out of it altogether.

[Jehrico]

I say keep it. But also, add in a clause that says the compensation expires if the guy signs after the first day of ST.

[BigbadB]

I like that. I'll send my proposal to Bud Selig, who will probably use it to start a fire or wipe his butt.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I say keep it. But also, add in a clause that says the compensation expires if the guy signs after the first day of ST.

 

The problem with that is any team not wanting to give up compensation would have a handshake agreement with players and all big deals would be signed the first day after the deadline.

 

Then MLB would be innundated with complaints of how people are abusing the system.

 

I'll admit the current format needs tinkering; I'm just not certain of the best way to handle it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This is probably the best place for this tidbit. MLB has lifted the restrictions on how many Type A free agents you can sign because of a "flooded market".

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090130&content_id=3785640&vkey=news_nyy&fext;=.jsp&c_id=nyy&partnerId=rss_nyy

[SouthSideRyan]

Draft pick compensation has failed in its stated reason. Small market teams can't afford the players, and therefore can't afford to offer arbitration and risk being stuck with a bloated contract for a player they don't want. The rich teams can afford to take the guy on a 1 year deal, offer, and collect picks. It's the big market teams stockpiling picks through compensation, not the Pirates of the world.

 

Draft pick compensation is a rousing success in its actual reason. That being keeping free agents' salaries down because teams don't want to forfeit a pick in addition to overpaying.

[jersey cubs fan]

Draft pick compensation has failed in its stated reason. Small market teams can't afford the players, and therefore can't afford to offer arbitration and risk being stuck with a bloated contract for a player they don't want. The rich teams can afford to take the guy on a 1 year deal, offer, and collect picks. It's the big market teams stockpiling picks through compensation, not the Pirates of the world.

 

Draft pick compensation is a rousing success in its actual reason. That being keeping free agents' salaries down because teams don't want to forfeit a pick in addition to overpaying.

 

Nonsense. Worrying about losing a pick is overblown. It's happened from time to time, but it hasn't come close to keeping salaries down. Virtually any player worthy of a big free agent deal is signed regardless of whether that team loses a pick. The economy this season has brought a renewerd concern about fiscal responsibility on the part of teams, but this is a first. Every year the Latroy Hawkins of the world are signed without concern about losing a pick.

[Jake]

It's interesting to come in here and read this as a fan of a so-called small market team. (Funny, our foot ball team is in the superbowl on Sunday, our Hockey team just lost the finals a couple of months ago, but I digress...)

 

One other think not mentioned here is that it's supposed to keep us from making desperation money trades. (Having Dave Littlefield for a GM seemed to disprove that notion, though.)

 

Also, not every free agent warrents a pick. We're not getting anything for Jason Michaels signing with Houston, nor should we.

 

Draft pick compensation has failed in its stated reason. Small market teams can't afford the players, and therefore can't afford to offer arbitration and risk being stuck with a bloated contract for a player they don't want.

 

2 things on this - first, this is exactly what did not happen this year. The only two players who accepted arbitration were relief pitchers. Two - anyone who'd warrant a contract that a team like the Pirates couldn't afford would want to parlay that success into a multi year contract and will therefore not accept arbitration.

 

There have been a number of free agents on the market who are still out there, despite being talented and worth a good contract. I've seen speculation here and on other boards that the reason for this is because teams are unwilling to give up draft picks as compensation.

The value of draft picks is way up there, thanks to the Rays getting into the WS this year. But, don't for a minute overlook the economy.

[Jehrico]

So, maybe give teams that lose a type A a sandwhich pick w/o having to offer arbitration. If they do offer arbitration, then they get the other teams pick and the sandwhich pick, like is already in place.

[Jehrico]

This is probably the best place for this tidbit. MLB has lifted the restrictions on how many Type A free agents you can sign because of a "flooded market".

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090130&content_id=3785640&vkey=news_nyy&fext;=.jsp&c_id=nyy&partnerId=rss_nyy

So this can come true now?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27656