Compensation

[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