Poll: Should Returned Comp FAs Be Able To Be Traded Right Away?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
38.46%
5 38.46%
No
61.54%
8 61.54%
Total 13 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

 
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Comp FAs Returned
#1
It was brought up in the chat and I don't think it's a bad idea to explore. The idea is simple, to no longer allow Comp FAs to immediately be traded if returned. They would be treated like a normal 2 year FA signing and not be eligible to be traded until after Sim 6 (July 1).

Comp fallback contracts have been viewed like arbitration deals, just like Comp FAs were viewed under the old Comp system in real life. With the 2 year contracts that we do, there could certainly be reason to suggest that they shouldn't be able to be traded.

I'm probably not alone in thinking that there's too many unworthy comps made in re-signings in the hopes that someone bails you out with a bid. I think doing this could cut back on a few comp FAs when people know they'd be stuck with the player for at least half a season.
Cle

Cleveland Record5631-4946 (.532) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2135]
AL Post: 16 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 12 - ALCS Champ: 7 - WS Champ: 4

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
#2
I agree with this
[Image: MIL-CHAMPS.jpg]
MIL GM: 2060 - 2093 , 2104 - 2106
PIT GM: 2094 - 2103
BAL GM: 2107 - present

5x World Series Championships (2077, 2088, 2090, 2104, 2105)



 





#3
Being the one that brings it up, I obviously think that they should be subject to the same sign and trade rules as any other player. To me, it shouldn't matter if a new team signs them or if they're returned. If a new team offers the same 2 Year @ 8 Mil contract, he's not eligible to be traded. Just like if the original team gave him that contract at resigning rather than comping him. 

Comping a player should be a risk. If he returns to you, you shouldn't be able to just imidiately unload him and move on, even if you end up eating part of the contract.
Mil 2107-Current

ARI2 2033-2069; 2083-2106

2033-2069: 2,921-3,073 (.487%)
2083-2106: 1,961-1,927 (.504%)

4 Wild Card Appearances
8 National League West Championships
4 World Series Championship

Career: 4,882-5,000(.494%)
#4
Agreed with Rhen Diesel.
Pit
2104-2106

237-249 record






Det
2047-2103

5,268-3,807 record

43 Playoff Appearances
27 Division Titles
19 Pennants
6 World Championships  

Houston Astros
2035-2046

1133-811 record

9 Playoff Appearances
5 Division Titles
1 Pennant


#5
I disagree. I think it's fine the way it is. How often does a returned guy get traded immediately anyway? If the risk of having to keep a guy for 3 months and pay him 4M over that time keeps you from comping a guy, then he probably wasn't getting comped anyway.
Houston GM
2060 - present

Playoffs: 20 (Division '68 - '73, '78, '81 -'86, '88, '05-'10)
ALDS Wins: 11 ('68, '70 - '73, '83, '94, '06 - '09)
ALCS Wins: 6 ('71, '73, '83, '06, '08, '09)
2073 WS Champs
#6
One thing that could help would be to indicate how frequently it's happening.
World Champion 2018, 2021, 2026, 2030, 2035, 2037, 2039
AL Champion 12 times
FCM Best Record-Holder - 121-41 2028
Overall Record: 3530-1978 .641%
#7
I agree that returned comp FA should not be immediately trade eligible.
COL GM: 2043 - present

2063 World Champions
2061 NL Champions
#8
(01-21-2020, 10:46 PM)AndyP Wrote: One thing that could help would be to indicate how frequently it's happening.

I think it's a tall order to show which trades involve Comp returns. RH brought it up in the chat and I felt it was a worthy discussion on which people feel is better - to treat them like any other FA signing or keep treating them like an arbitration deal. I don't think there's a wrong answer on this.
Cle

Cleveland Record5631-4946 (.532) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2135]
AL Post: 16 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 12 - ALCS Champ: 7 - WS Champ: 4

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
#9
(01-21-2020, 04:36 PM)texas_tornado Wrote: I disagree. I think it's fine the way it is. How often does a returned guy get traded immediately anyway? If the risk of having to keep a guy for 3 months and pay him 4M over that time keeps you from comping a guy, then he probably wasn't getting comped anyway.

I agree.  This is a solution to something that isn't a problem.  If you want to fine people the other half of that first year of the contract to prevent this or even the full contract, go for it if you're feeling punitive.  But preventing another team from trading for a player is an unintended consequence that hurts more than this (unnecessary) rule would help.
Los Angeles Dodgers GM
#10
(01-22-2020, 11:23 AM)mattynokes Wrote:
(01-21-2020, 10:46 PM)AndyP Wrote: One thing that could help would be to indicate how frequently it's happening.

I think it's a tall order to show which trades involve Comp returns. RH brought it up in the chat and I felt it was a worthy discussion on which people feel is better - to treat them like any other FA signing or keep treating them like an arbitration deal. I don't think there's a wrong answer on this.

I was simply wondering if the frequency warranted the concern.
World Champion 2018, 2021, 2026, 2030, 2035, 2037, 2039
AL Champion 12 times
FCM Best Record-Holder - 121-41 2028
Overall Record: 3530-1978 .641%
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)



Forum Jump: