Improving Type A Compensation

rockybull · 05-07-2014, 07:50 PM

I love that this league allows for GM's to offer Type A or Type B fallback, I like that sooooo much more than having a system and the system chooses. This way that we use in this league is soooo much better, but I do believe a tweak is in order. I'll give 2 examples, and I mean no disrespect or anything or trying to go after the GM's here, because they are doing exactly how the rules are constructed, and I don't think this will get changed for this year, since it's already off-season, but maybe my suggestion can help the league going forward, which is important.

Go look in the resignings and you will see the Giants offering Type A fallback to Corey Attermann - SP and Nats offering Type A fallback to Ray Flemming - 1B. First off, Atterman should only be getting offered Type B, his vitals and stats just aren't nearly good enough to be offered Type A, but problem is, some team that has a lot of cash may be desperate enough to bid on him, since most Free agencies here are weak or just average. There is a lot of cash in the game, and there will be teams needing to unload the cash and may bid on him. That's a very scary thought that the Giants or any team to get a Type A comp for that guy. That's not how the system should be designed, I think I have a fix for this, but keep reading.

Ray Flemming - 1B is a little better but only has a career .792 OPS and just had a 10 homer year, .778 OPS season from the 1B position and he'll now be 33 years old. He does do a good job of getting on base, but I don't think he's worth Type A. No way he's worth getting an important pick in the 30's range, that's ridiculous. I realize that neither of these two players may get bid on, but what if they do? That's ridiculous that those two players possibly could net their teams 30's overall picks, that's crazy. Would any gm here trade a 30's overall pick for either of them? I'd be stunned if any team would. My point is, we should make it tougher for gm's to offer Type A comp.

Talents like Kamp and good players like that should get Type A comp, not some run of the mill guys. I have a suggestion, just for Type A guys, and I think that this will improve and much better shot at only the elite or almost elite guys being offered Type A comp in the future.

ONLY for Type A fallback players: You have to offer 2 years: $16 million per year, so if they don't get any bids, then you're on the hook for 2 years at that price, so it will make teams think more, so that's a solution I wouldn't mind trying and I think that we'll mainly see only the real good players offered Type A. I don't think we have to do this for Type B players, because overall most of them are getting labeled correctly. Right now, there is no fear in offering Type A comp for almost anyone that's solid. I have no doubts that Flemming and Atterman would be offered Type B and be worth comp, but it's crazy to offer them Type A and they'll probably get someone to bid, even if just one of them gets a bid, it's too much.

There is just currently no fear in it, and there should be some level of fear, other than they have to pay him 1 year: $16 million. At least now the gm's would have to think a bit more in case nobody bids on their player. Maybe this doesn't completely fix the problem, but I believe it's a step in the right direction.

Right now, people knows that these FA classes are pretty weak overall, they know the cash situation in this league, it's a situation where teams are taking advantage of the landscape here and can get rewarded greatly. If we have at least Type A fallback changed to this, then more teams are going to second guess themselves and offer Type B rather than Type A. Guys like Kamp should be the main ones getting Type A comp, not just any average Joe getting offered it.

It just looks like a flaw in this and I don't think teams should be rewarded like that, while it pushes back bad teams in the 2nd round even further away, when they need those early picks more. I'm not just saying this because I have early picks, I'm not going to be bad forever, I just want this to be as realistic as possible for the future, it will never be perfect, but I think this would be in the right direction.

***AndyP*** · 05-07-2014, 09:33 PM

I think where Rocky is on to something is the idea that a guy like Fleming r Atterman may land someone a comp pick they don't deserve.

Back when we went by stats we had a handle on that but now the market (and people's willingness to toss huge money around) has allowed Type B players to land Type A value. I think the 2 year idea isn't a bad one.

I also think we may want to drop revenue another 10% after next year and possibly another 10% after that until some people have to make hard choices at times.

***mattynokes*** · 05-07-2014, 10:36 PM

I'm not opposed to this, but I think some of it falls on the league. We've seen in the past teams with high round picks bid on some borderline comp players. Sure, you only have to give up your 5th or 6th, but I've found that odd since you're also pushing back your picks.

***Geaux Blue*** · 05-07-2014, 11:42 PM

I'm on board with this idea.

mike · 05-08-2014, 12:30 AM

I like the idea but at the end of the day the more players hitting FA the better regardless if they are offered a higher comp than they maybe should get. Which I think if you take that idea and put it into action you will less guys hit. I'm also not sold on the idea that guys getting comp and having bad teams picks moved back really hurt them THAT much. Sure you move down a few spots but it's not like your going down a full round. I think lowering revenue again would be a good idea.

rockybull · (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014, 07:02 AM by rockybull.)

(05-07-2014, 10:36 PM)mattynokes Wrote: I'm not opposed to this, but I think some of it falls on the league. We've seen in the past teams with high round picks bid on some borderline comp players. Sure, you only have to give up your 5th or 6th, but I've found that odd since you're also pushing back your picks.

Have people in that situation done that with Type A's though? Or if so is it an isolated issue where maybe 1 GM is doing it? I guess we would need to know how much that is going on, but I would figure it's not many bad teams bidding on Type A guys. Also if bad teams have done that, did those teams improve themselves a good bit recently?

Type B guys I think is ok to do that with, maybe you try to improve yourself and get better. Teams getting 60's overall comp picks aren't that huge of a deal like 30's overall picks where sometimes 1st round talents fall early in the 2nd round. I always see good talent still there around the 30's and 40's picks.

(05-08-2014, 12:30 AM)mike Wrote: I like the idea but at the end of the day the more players hitting FA the better regardless if they are offered a higher comp than they maybe should get. Which I think if you take that idea and put it into action you will less guys hit. I'm also not sold on the idea that guys getting comp and having bad teams picks moved back really hurt them THAT much. Sure you move down a few spots but it's not like your going down a full round. I think lowering revenue again would be a good idea.

I think that's terrible for the league to be ok with guys getting better picks for so so guys just to make FA a little bit better. I think that's awful for the league. Teams with early picks moving down further is secondary in this discussion. It's relevant, but what is more relevant, is that these players don't deserve Type A status and shouldn't be getting their teams 30's overall picks. I don't think nobody here would give up a 30's or even 40's overall pick for either one of those players, so why should they get it in FA, by taking advantage of the FA landscape? You look at Kamp, somebody would give it up, because he deserves without a question Type A status.

Is it really that big of a deal if either of those two players don't hit FA? I mean you have a pitcher that has sucked in his career in a pitchers' park, and just now had a solid year, but likely won't sustain it, then a solid 1B that gets on base but isn't anything special from the 1B position. So what if they don't hit FA? Neither one is likely a difference maker for a team anyway. They'd likely instead get offered Type B from their teams. I think both situations, getting 60's overall picks for those guys would be better than their teams extending them, and risking them drop and they get no comp in future for them. And if they decide to extend them, then so what, not like they are that good anyway.

I looked at the Nationals situation and with his extensions and everything, his payroll right now would be $186 million, with inclusion of Flemming not getting any bids and returning to the Nats (would be 16 mil lower if another team bids, obviously). It's a big risk if you have to pay him 2 years of 16 mil per year. 1 year, you can sustain it, but I'm sure Peter believes with the way the FA landscape is, that he'll get someone to bid on Flemming, so it's not as big of a risk, but you would have to take a pause if it's 2 years at 16 mil per.

I think it was smart of Vertigo and Peter to offer Type A fallback, I don't fault them at all, they are just doing what the rules say they can do, I'm sure we'll see more of this happening with other teams in future if nothing happens. Like I said, I think it's too late to do anything this year, so I'm not advocating this being changed now, but this is change for the next year and beyond that I think will help the league. I also wouldn't have a problem with also doing what Andy said about lowering revenue. I think both of these combined could really help the situation even more. League has already tweaked the prices for offering fallback, I feel like it needs this tweak to help even more.

Cdawg · 05-08-2014, 09:39 AM

The risk is offering them fallback in the first place. regardless of it's 1 year or 2, that's the risk. if no one takes them that's their fault. Fleming will be a extra 12M to Washington's payroll, and that is the risk.

here is my question...what exactly is this trying to fix, or benefit? removing cash? making it a tough decision on us to decide should we comp him at A or B? I see it as an unnecessary fix to something that isn't really broke. it's like Burger King always trying to add something else to its burgers. Just gimme a hamburger hold the onion. I don't need onion rings and 4 patties and a christmas elf in my burger.

If you want to fix something, lets talk about being able to trade someone at the end of the file who is 1 year away. I should be allowed to extend someone and trade him if a trade gets done. It's done in the MLB, why not here. B/c it's against the sign and trade rule? How so, that rule is for teams in FA who pick up someone like Fleming, then try to dump him off for a 3rd round pick. I already own Player XYZ, If I want to extend him and trade him, how does that violate anything other than being a GM in real life?

rockybull · 05-08-2014, 10:51 AM

(05-08-2014, 09:39 AM)Cdawg Wrote: The risk is offering them fallback in the first place. regardless of it's 1 year or 2, that's the risk. if no one takes them that's their fault. Fleming will be a extra 12M to Washington's payroll, and that is the risk.

here is my question...what exactly is this trying to fix, or benefit? removing cash? making it a tough decision on us to decide should we comp him at A or B? I see it as an unnecessary fix to something that isn't really broke. it's like Burger King always trying to add something else to its burgers. Just gimme a hamburger hold the onion. I don't need onion rings and 4 patties and a christmas elf in my burger.

If you want to fix something, lets talk about being able to trade someone at the end of the file who is 1 year away. I should be allowed to extend someone and trade him if a trade gets done. It's done in the MLB, why not here. B/c it's against the sign and trade rule? How so, that rule is for teams in FA who pick up someone like Fleming, then try to dump him off for a 3rd round pick. I already own Player XYZ, If I want to extend him and trade him, how does that violate anything other than being a GM in real life?

What it fixes is that it won't/rarely allow so so players being offered offered Type A comp and getting a good early 30's overall pick for a player that isn't worth it, because of GM's (all of us GM's) taking advantage of the FA landscape in this league. Like I said, it's not a big risk right now, but if you have to offer 2 years, it's a much bigger risk. A lot of GM's would likely just extend the player or offer Type B, rather than take that risk. You say it's not broken, but I don't know how you can think that way, and this is just the beginning, other teams are going to pay attention how this unfolds in FA, and if those players get bids, you will see more of this.

Right now it's not a big enough risk for Washington or anyone. It's a pretty low risk right now with very high rewards (someone bidding on the player and you get a 30's overall pick for a so so 1B, that's what I call almost a no brainer!!!). I don't know how anyone can see it differently. In real life, you didn't see teams wanting to bid on Stephen Drew, because they didn't want to give up a pick. If it was same rules in MLB like it is here, Drew would have been signed way before now. Right now, teams in this league has cash, payroll space and willing to pay lots of money for so so guys, because of how average most FA classes are in this league.

I don't see how it's beneficial for the league to allow teams to be able to do this (and it's going to happen more, why wouldn't it?). Basically, you're going to have good teams just filter out players. They have enough of a revenue/cash in their system, they have a so so player, they know how the FA landscape is here, they say ok, I got another guy like him, I'll just offer him Type A, and likely get it, then I'll have a early pick and try to take a stud with it and the cycle continues. That's how teams continue to stay on top for as long as they are smart with their finances and drafting.

I'm not trying to say teams can't stay on top, nothing wrong with that, but to help stay on top because of taking advantage of the FA landscape and offering so so players Type A comp and getting it is atrocious for this league. This is not good, and don't know how anyone can think otherwise, but to each their own.

Cdawg · 05-08-2014, 11:13 AM

I think if you do this you don't have any type A, it doesn't make it worth it to do that.

***mattynokes*** · 05-08-2014, 12:06 PM

(05-08-2014, 11:13 AM)Cdawg Wrote: I think if you do this you don't have any type A, it doesn't make it worth it to do that.

Macnish, Gibson, Wine, Horton, Demont are all guys that no doubt are still offered Type A with a two year commitment. And it doesn't matter if there are any Type A FAs or not. What matters is if there's going to be talent in free agency. Some of the players in question (and those in the past) would surely still be offered Type B. The difference is people think the inherited risk of trying for Type A instead of Type B is worth it since people seem to be throwing money at any sort of talent that hits free agency.