Compensation

[mike]

Coming from someone who doesn't have to edit the draft I think the current system is fine. We get decent FA classes which imo is the main point of a compensation system. It's also pretty simple which is something I think is key as well. I don't think it bogs down the draft. Even if we had 15 comp guys sign that's only a potential half hour add on to what already is a quick draft assuming Andy keeps to the 2 minute pick time limit. Most of the picks only take seconds to make at that point in the draft anyway since comp picks can't be moved. So in actuality were talking like a few minutes being shaved off.

If we have to change the one Andy suggested seems like the better of the two for simplicity. Although it takes away a lot of the risk on those type a guys. I just don't want to run the risk of having terrible FA classes because that benefits no one.

[cadmus2166]

I like the idea of eliminating type A and B and just going the compensation route. A middle ground of $12.5M seems about right to me. I don't think there should be a limit on how many times a guy is compensated, however.

[AndyP]

Cad, why are you opposed to the comp idea?

[cadmus2166]

Just to be clear, the only part that's been discussed that I don't really like is the limit on times a player can be comped. I just don't see it as a big problem. Players who are comped get a minimum 2 year deal, and often more, so it's not like players are getting comped every year. I figure that if you gave up a draft pick to acquire a player at some point and then a few years later that player is still good enough for you to get a pick back, once they aren't needed anymore or if a team has needed to undergo a rebuild then you should be able to. Sometimes being able to comp a player helps a team entering rebuild mode, so you can't just make an argument that the rich are always just getting richer from the comp system as was suggested earlier.

[Geaux Blue]

Lets not lose sight that the reason for the comp system is to make FA better. Do these suggestions help aid that?

[rockybull]

Just to be clear, the only part that's been discussed that I don't really like is the limit on times a player can be comped. I just don't see it as a big problem. Players who are comped get a minimum 2 year deal, and often more, so it's not like players are getting comped every year. I figure that if you gave up a draft pick to acquire a player at some point and then a few years later that player is still good enough for you to get a pick back, once they aren't needed anymore or if a team has needed to undergo a rebuild then you should be able to. Sometimes being able to comp a player helps a team entering rebuild mode, so you can't just make an argument that the rich are always just getting richer from the comp system as was suggested earlier.

A team entering rebuild mode is irrelevant in this discussion. They shouldn't get a comp pick that they didn't deserve either.

Why should a team in FA that threw out the most money for a player, that ends up helping the team have access of getting a free pick just because they threw out the most money in FA? Reward enough was that player helping them. The team also would still have another reward, that reward is being able to extend a player without having to fight with 29 other potential gm's in FA. So the team is still coming out smelling like roses. Right now teams not only benefit from the player helping them during the contract that you signed them to, but they have 2 options of extending the player OR getting a pick back in comp. That's just too much.

Herrod pitching well for detroit, helping them win a WS, and them having access to extend him and not fighting for him in FA is sufficient enough. That's enough reward in and of itself. But now, they comp'd him and got a bid and now will get a nice pick for him. I want to make it very clear, GB did nothing wrong. I would have done the exact same thing as he did, it's very smart strategy. But, I don't feel like it's good for the league.

As far as people saying this could hurt the league where more players just extend with the team, GM's have been saying that since i've been here anytime suggestions come up. There were people on the suggestions threads and in chat in the past saying how making 2 year 16 mil for Type A was gonna hurt the league, nope it hasn't. And so what if GB would have extended Herrod, so ok you have maybe 1 or 2 less FA's a year. Big deal, I'd take that than letting teams get good picks just because they spent the most in FA.

Compensation is meant as a reward for teams. Not sure how rewarding a team like Detroit a good pick just because they spent the most on Herrod in FA 2 years ago makes any sense whatsoever. And he's not the only one that's been done like that, he's just the most recent.

[mzylinski]

These are also the teams that have the lowest picks in the draft and are the most likely to trade those picks to rebuilders for players needed. So being able to get a small reward for having money to spend on the GAMBLE to have a FA stay good enough to comp isn’t a big deal.

[mattynokes]

Lets not lose sight that the reason for the comp system is to make FA better. Do these suggestions help aid that?

Let's not forget that we've made sizable changes to Compensation 2 or 3 times in the past and people worried it would alter things. It did not. Compensation also isn't just to make FA better. If that were our goal, we'd just force all eligibles to FA. The system is also aimed at compensating those who lose key FAs. The changes are aimed at tightening up, so that unworthy players aren't giving teams an additional pick.

Just to be clear, the only part that's been discussed that I don't really like is the limit on times a player can be comped. I just don't see it as a big problem. Players who are comped get a minimum 2 year deal, and often more, so it's not like players are getting comped every year. I figure that if you gave up a draft pick to acquire a player at some point and then a few years later that player is still good enough for you to get a pick back, once they aren't needed anymore or if a team has needed to undergo a rebuild then you should be able to. Sometimes being able to comp a player helps a team entering rebuild mode, so you can't just make an argument that the rich are always just getting richer from the comp system as was suggested earlier.

If a player was really worth compensation wouldn't teams be signing them to long-term deals where compensation wasn't even a realistic option? However, it benefits teams to pay high salaries rather than make the deal longer. The reason is so that they can flip them back into comp soon.

It would make more sense for winning to sign a guy to a 13M salary for 4 years. However, GMs are more likely to a 26M salary for 2 years. It's the same money and if you have the money to pay a guy 26M per year, then you'd have the money long-term as well.

Signing players to the 13Mx4 deal still benefits competing and rebuilding teams alike. If either decide they don't need the player, then they can trade him and that way they aren't gaming the system.

While I prefer what I originally posted, I'm not opposed to doing away with A/B designations. I do still like the thresholds. Whatever we raise the Fallback to, I think people will still have those "Ah, fuck it" bids in the 11th hour simply because they have the payroll space. So, I would say...


Fallback: 10Mx2

Type B Pick = 25M-49.9M
Type A Pick = 50M+

If a player signs for 20M-24.9M, it's treated like a normal FA signing. No one gains a pick, no one loses a pick.

This is the format I like best atm. Even good with going higher with:
Fallback: 12.5Mx2

Type B Pick = 30M-49.9M
Type A Pick = 50M+

After thinking about it, I still like the format where there's a threshold the best. I think we should either leave Fallback at 8Mx2 or if we're going to change it, only raise it to 10Mx2.

I like the degree of uncertainty and risk that the threshold brings. It's much like the risk on choosing Type A or B. I do not like raising Fallback to 12.5Mx2, I think that will cause GMs to not give up players to FA.

Fallback: $8Mx2 or $10Mx2

Type B Pick: $25M-$49.9M
Type A Pick: $50M+
No Pick: $16M-$24.9M or $20M-$24.9M

[texas_tornado]

While I prefer what I originally posted, I'm not opposed to doing away with A/B designations. I do still like the thresholds. Whatever we raise the Fallback to, I think people will still have those "Ah, fuck it" bids in the 11th hour simply because they have the payroll space. So, I would say...


Fallback: 10Mx2

Type B Pick = 25M-49.9M
Type A Pick = 50M+

If a player signs for 20M-24.9M, it's treated like a normal FA signing. No one gains a pick, no one loses a pick.

This is the format I like best atm. Even good with going higher with:
Fallback: 12.5Mx2

Type B Pick = 30M-49.9M
Type A Pick = 50M+

After thinking about it, I still like the format where there's a threshold the best. I think we should either leave Fallback at 8Mx2 or if we're going to change it, only raise it to 10Mx2.

I like the degree of uncertainty and risk that the threshold brings. It's much like the risk on choosing Type A or B. I do not like raising Fallback to 12.5Mx2, I think that will cause GMs to not give up players to FA.

Fallback: $8Mx2 or $10Mx2

Type B Pick: $25M-$49.9M
Type A Pick: $50M+
No Pick: $16M-$24.9M or $20M-$24.9M

I didn't really take into account the idea of raising the fallback too high causing GM's to simply re-sign their guys rather than send them to FA, so I'd agree that keeping the fallback at 2/8M and letting the total contract decide compensation is probably better overall for FA.

[AndyP]

So, from what I see, do we have any kind of consensus here?