New Compensation

[mattynokes]

Scrap the formula jhc uses and do a qualifying offer style. I think Type A and B need to stay, otherwise we'll still have players re-signed because people don't want to lose them for nothing if we go the full route of the real MLB.

1. You may make a fallback offer for any player with 6+ years of service time based average salaries:
-- A. For Compensation Round A, average of top 200 salaries for fallback
-- B. For Compensation Round B, average of top 500 salaries for fallback

You are stuck with whatever you choose and cannot change i.e. from Comp A to Comp B if your guy isn't getting any bids. Average salaries will be taken on opening day.

The exact average salaries (whether top 150, 200, etc) is still to be determined.

[gmoney]

I would make the Comp A fallback average for non-qualifiers either the average if the top 150 or 80% of the previous salary, whichever is greater. Other than that, I like the idea.

[hickoxb2]

I love this idea. I've seen quite a few players (mine as well as others) who get huge returns in FA who aren't compensation eligible, and others who don't get any offers because they are. This would level that playing field a bit more and make GMs honestly look at what their players are worth.

If this gets enough support, would this apply to this offseason or next offseason, though?

[mike]

If we are going to possibly go this route I think we might as well take it a step further and eliminate any formulas for compensation. Instead just have anyone who is eligible for FA be a comp player if the GM chooses him to be. Obviously if you choose a guy to be a comp player and he actually sucks then you would be stuck with a big salary on a useless player since no one would sign him.

[mattynokes]

I would make the Comp A fallback average for non-qualifiers either the average if the top 150 or 80% of the previous salary, whichever is greater. Other than that, I like the idea.

Initially I thought this would be good, but the point is to encourage players to go to FA and I think higher prices will make players fall into that "I'll just keep him category."

If we are going to possibly go this route I think we might as well take it a step further and eliminate any formulas for compensation. Instead just have anyone who is eligible for FA be a comp player if the GM chooses him to be. Obviously if you choose a guy to be a comp player and he actually sucks then you would be stuck with a big salary on a useless player since no one would sign him.

I'm not opposed to this. It does let the GMs have total control over the situation. This is basically the real life rules, but I do think we need a differentiation between Type A and Type B. It allows for risk-reward and further encourages GMs to let players hit free agency.

[mike]

Maybe to have a type B and A give two sets of salaries. So if you release a player but declare him as a type A then the starting salary is significantly higher than if you declaree that same player as a type B.

[mattynokes]

Maybe to have a type B and A give two sets of salaries. So if you release a player but declare him as a type A then the starting salary is significantly higher than if you declaree that same player as a type B.

That's what the point of the two salary types are for. And yeah, a GM would have to declare which comp type they want. Really an average wouldn't be needed. It could even be something like $15M for Type A, $7M for Type B.

[AndyP]

I worry adding more compensation eligible players will add more comp picks, that's something I want to avoid.

[jhc54]

I'm fine with the Type A and Type B while scrapping the formula version. The formula could be a relic from 2011, and the Type A and Type B system should work.

[AndyP]

I am open to experimenting with the second option, where the QO determines the compensation eligibility.