• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Improving Type A Compensation
#6
(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.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)



Messages In This Thread
Improving Type A Compensation - by rockybull - 05-07-2014, 07:50 PM
RE: Improving Type A Compensation - by AndyP - 05-07-2014, 09:33 PM
RE: Improving Type A Compensation - by mattynokes - 05-07-2014, 10:36 PM
RE: Improving Type A Compensation - by rockybull - 05-08-2014, 06:15 AM
RE: Improving Type A Compensation - by Geaux Blue - 05-07-2014, 11:42 PM
RE: Improving Type A Compensation - by mike - 05-08-2014, 12:30 AM
RE: Improving Type A Compensation - by Cdawg - 05-08-2014, 09:39 AM
RE: Improving Type A Compensation - by rockybull - 05-08-2014, 10:51 AM
RE: Improving Type A Compensation - by Cdawg - 05-08-2014, 11:13 AM
RE: Improving Type A Compensation - by mattynokes - 05-08-2014, 12:06 PM
RE: Improving Type A Compensation - by rockybull - 05-08-2014, 12:35 PM
RE: Improving Type A Compensation - by mike - 05-08-2014, 12:14 PM
RE: Improving Type A Compensation - by Cdawg - 05-08-2014, 12:32 PM
RE: Improving Type A Compensation - by AndyP - 05-08-2014, 05:37 PM

Forum Jump: