Poll: Should compensation change?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Players can only be sent for Compensation once
20.69%
6 20.69%
Players can only be sent once for Type A, once for Type B
13.79%
4 13.79%
Returned players cannot be traded until July 1
34.48%
10 34.48%
No changes
31.03%
9 31.03%
Total 29 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

 
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Compensation Changes?
#4
Here's my thoughts...

Option 1 - I don't like it because I think it's too harsh, too quick. I'm not entirely opposed to it, but I think Option 2 is better. You could say "it's realistic", but it gets lost in the fact that our comp is a hybrid of the old and current compensation system. Reality hasn't necessarily set a precedent in our league.

Option 2 - Obviously I prefer this one, since it's what I voted for. I think in a progression sense that it makes sense that a guy could be Type A once and then go on to be Type B once later in his career. However, I feel once a player goes for Type B, the league has spoken on his value and he can no longer go for compensation.

Option 3 - I think Andy put it best, there's not enough risk for people. This guarantees that you're paying a player $4M, if they return. It could certainly stop some of the "Pray someone gets desperate" comps. I feel adding this with Option 2 would be good, but I feel adding it with Option 1 would be too much.

Option 4 - I'll be blunt on one concern brought up; FA class quality. If you think these changes could have a big effect on FA class quality, then you're clueless or haven't been paying attention. Any of the times when we've made changes to compensation, it's been questioned if it'll hurt FA classes and every time it has zero noticeable effect. Do some players just get resigned? Maybe. But they're the dime a dozen players, not players that will stand out in free agency.

With me posting the compensation threads, it gets a little disheartening to see some of the players that are comped. It feels like I should just type "Returning to...for..." instead of the team and fallback. I also don't think it was the intention of compensation to see players going through compensation 3 or more times (we have 2 this year). I know some contenders have been frustrated when player doesn't get traded, because the other team would rather risk sending the player for compensation. That can seem like sour grapes, but it benefits the league to have teams competing and to have trade activity.

I really think something needs to change and is why I tried to give a number of options. I don't think it needs to be one vote and a decision made. I think we could easily have another vote based on the preferred options of this one.
Cle

Cleveland Record5304-4625 (.534) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2131]
AL Post: 15 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 11 - ALCS Champ: 6 - WS Champ: 3

ALW: Mariners + Angels Record: 1072-864 (.554) [2042-2048, 2105-2110]
AL Post: 3 (ALW), 4 (WC) - ALDS Win: 3 - ALCS Champ: 1 - WS Champ: 1

NLW: Rockies + Padres Record: 3230-2753 (.540) [2017-2042, 2072-2082]
NL Post: 18 (NLW), 4 (WC) - NLDS Win: 7 - NLCS Champ: 4 - WS Champ: 0
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)



Messages In This Thread
Compensation Changes? - by mattynokes - 06-11-2020, 04:42 PM
RE: Compensation Changes? - by AndyP - 06-12-2020, 03:33 PM
RE: Compensation Changes? - by Oldwiseman - 06-12-2020, 05:56 PM
RE: Compensation Changes? - by mattynokes - 06-12-2020, 07:20 PM

Forum Jump: