Compensation Transition

[mattynokes]

As DJ and I talked, there's interest in changing up how we do compensation. In looking over how much the compensation players have gotten in FA I've noticed many Type B players receiving a higher total value offer than Type A players.

For example, as we saw a few years back both Brent Cook and Geraldo Orge received a higher total value offer than any of the Type A players. To me the league is saying those players were more valuable than the Type A players and should have had higher compensation.

The idea is to remove Type A or B status as well a need for a formula to determine compensation. In order to be eligible for compensation, the fallback salary would be an average of the top 10 salaries at the player's position (top 40 for SPs). Average salaries will be determined as of the opening day file.

This would allow ANY player to be compensated in just ONE compensation round. However, this doesn't mean that there will be a spike in compensated players as not every potential FA will be worth top 10 average salary at their position.

As of Opening Day 2029:

SP: $14.38M
RP: $10.21M
CA: $8.95M
1B: $12.03M
2B: $11.83M
3B: $12.80M
SS: $12.68M
LF: $8.22M
CF: $10.91M
RF: $13.28M

As for what teams will have to give up for signing the compensated players:

One Player Signed: 5th Round Pick
Two Players Signed: 5th and 6th Round Picks
Three Players Signed: 4th - 6th Round Picks

----------

UPDATED: Option #2

As was discussed in XAT earlier, in the least Type A/B should go away. There's multiple example where Type B players have received much higher than Type A players. The process would be the same.

1. JHC's formula to determine who qualifies.
2. Calculated salaries to determine fallback.
3. Highest total contract value then determines the draft order.
4. There would be just one compensation round, between the first and second round.
5. Teams would lose a 5th if one player signed, 5th and 6th if two players signed, and 4th-6th if three players signed.

I will acknowledge Sean's suggestion to award the compensation round order to the highest salary, rather than the highest total offer. The problem I have with it is it would value a $9M for 1 year offer over a $7M for 4 years offer. Both ways can have their issues, but a longer offer speaks for the team feeling that the player will hold their value better than a one year offer.

[AndyP]

It may be beneficial, for this conversation, to post a handful of examples from this season. For example, Macies, Kearsay, Gamora, Witton, Olona, Camaradan, just to show how it would work in practice.

[mattynokes]

Sure, I've updated what the fallback prices would've been under this scenario.

Macies and Kearsey would have a fallback price of $14.38M. So say Macies gets a 5 year offer. The salary would have to be at least $10.07M.

Gamora, being a catcher would have an $8.95M fallback price. Saying he might get a 3 year deal, the salary would have to be $7.16M at the minimum.

Others would follow suit for their respective positions.

[AndyP]

Hmmm, I assumed that the per-year salary would have to be 14+ in the case of Macies? In your scenario, doesn't it seem like quite a few players will get compensation? I'm not opposed to the idea, just trying to get a feel for how it would impact FA.

[mattynokes]

Hmmm, I assumed that the per-year salary would have to be 14+ in the case of Macies? In your scenario, doesn't it seem like quite a few players will get compensation? I'm not opposed to the idea, just trying to get a feel for how it would impact FA.

The way we do compensatory player FA threads would be the same, just that the fallback price would change. The 10% drop in accepted salary per year additional year offered (up to 4 years) would stand.

In Macies' case, yes his fallback price would drop around $1M. But consider Kearsey's price would rise considerably (his calc salary is $8.1M). Under this kind of compensation system I doubt I offer fallback to Gamora or Brand (since both would be much higher than what they currently are).

With any system you'll have some players that have a fallback price that's a no-brainer. I think the intention of compensation is to reward those that lost a truly valuable piece. This would weed out a lot of players who are only compensated because of an extremely low calculated salary.

[AndyP]

Fair enough, I would be on board with the change.

[mattynokes]

As was discussed in XAT earlier, in the least Type A/B should go away. There's multiple example where Type B players have received much higher than Type A players. The process would be the same.

1. JHC's formula to determine who qualifies.
2. Calculated salaries to determine fallback.
3. Highest total contract value then determines the draft order.
4. There would be just one compensation round, between the first and second round.
5. Teams would lose a 5th if one player signed, 5th and 6th if two players signed, and 4th-6th if three players signed.

I will acknowledge Sean's suggestion to award the compensation round order to the highest salary, rather than the highest total offer. The problem I have with it is it would value a $9M for 1 year offer over a $7M for 4 years offer. Both ways can have their issues, but a longer offer speaks for the team feeling that the player will hold their value better than a one year offer.

[mzylinski]

I dont think we should change anything, to be honest Type B contract are higher i bet bc they give up a 2nd rnd pick not a 1st, hence willing to spend more money.

[Corey]

I like it, I also like the suggestion of still using the formula to determine comp eligible players.

As for the order of the comp round, why not based on the JHC rating?

[mattynokes]

As for the order of the comp round, why not based on the JHC rating?

That would defeat the purpose of removing Type A/B. The point of removing it is so that the league in essence determines the compensation round order with the FA bids.