Compensation Transition

[GoIrish]

I am on board with this, makes sense to me. Either way of either per contract or per yearly salary has flaws, so I am open to using either.

[psbaseballfan27]

I like JHC for simplistic reasons. I dont wanna have to figure out which picks I will lose by signing players. I'd rather know whats gonna happen right away when signing a player.

[mattynokes]

I like JHC for simplistic reasons. I dont wanna have to figure out which picks I will lose by signing players. I'd rather know whats gonna happen right away when signing a player.

How wouldn't you know right away? There would be only one compensation round. If you sign one compensation player you lose a 5th, two signed and you additional lose your 6th, and if a third player is signed you'd lose your 4th.

The differences are...

Current:
Use JHC's formula, Fallback
Type A/B
Two compensation rounds
Lose picks based on comp type (4th if three signed)

Proposed #1:
Any player can be compensated, as long as a qualifying offer is met (some sort of Top # (10?) average salary at position)
No Type A/B
One compensation round
Lose 5th if one signed, 5th and 6th if two signed (4th if three signed)

Proposed #2:
Use JHC's formula, Fallback
No Type A/B
One compensation round
Lose 5th if one signed, 5th and 6th if two signed (4th if three signed)

[GoIrish]

proposed 2 is what makes most sense to me.

[Corey]

I'm on board for #2 as well

[sxr007]

I am not in favor of changing anything. Seems like everytime something is changed the actual written rules dont change. Newcomers who reference the written rules find out what it written is not the actual rule. Speaking from experience.

[mattynokes]

I am not in favor of changing anything. Seems like everytime something is changed the actual written rules dont change. Newcomers who reference the written rules find out what it written is not the actual rule. Speaking from experience.

It's not changing a rule, it's changing a process. Since you can't trade the compensation picks, knowing or not knowing won't really effect anything. How you go about offering fallback wouldn't change under option #2 (which seems like what we're discussing at this point).

All GMs have to do is offer fallback if they want to and wait to see if he gets signed. If you're going after the comp players, you're still going to lose your 5th, 6th, and possibly 4th round picks.

[AndyP]

Yeah, I would only vote for #2, I think number 1 is unnecessary at this point

[jhc54]

Number 2 just seems more feasible.

[sxr007]

The rules still havent been changed from the last time the free agency rule was changed. When I was new to FCM, I relied on the written rules. I didn't go after Type A or B free agents my first two years because I would have lost a 1st or 2nd round pick (according to the written rules). I found out later the verbal rules had been changed but not the written rules. I complained that the written rules should be changed but it was not. IT IS NOT FAIR TO NEW GM's TO NOT CHANGE THE WRITTEN RULE. HERE IS THE CURRENT WRITTEN RULE:

"Type A free agents will require a 1st round pick to sign. Type B free agents will require a 2nd round pick to sign."

Again, I am not in favor in changing any part of this game until the written rules are correct with which rules we actually follow.

---

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.

actually you dont give up a 1st or 2nd round pick by signing Type A or B agents. Of course if you are like me when you begin with FCM and read the rules you would assume you do. Here is the written rule:

"Type A free agents will require a 1st round pick to sign. Type B free agents will require a 2nd round pick to sign."

But FCM has verbal rules that override written rules. You have to ask a governing body of FCM to make sure the written rule is still correct.