Eligibility for comp

***mattynokes*** · 02-20-2014, 09:52 PM

Meh, I kind of see it like the WB suggestion. I don't necessarily see it adding to compensation. A guy like Curt Wine was going to be compensated regardless. In fact encouraging a trade drops him from Type A to Type B, which helps 2nd round picks hold their value.

Removing Type B is counterproductive. Those are the more likely players headed for FA. No encouragement for FA is going to lead to even worse FA classes. It's also interesting to me that a team like MIN signed the players that they did. I think a guy like Lovell Jones was headed back to WAS. Instead WAS gets comp and pushes the MIN 3rd rounder back another pick. I get wanting to increase payroll so you don't lose money to the "luxury tax", but I would like to think signing a non-comp FA where you're not decreasing the value of your own picks would be the better option.

If we're to look at anything, I think we look at increasing the fallback prices. If people tend to think they're cheap and worth the gamble, let's up the ante! I'd say the height of where we'd got would be 18/10 and middle ground from where we're at now would be about 16/8.5.

Steal Third · 02-20-2014, 10:34 PM

I think that less comp players is probably better. As Rocky says, it just pushes back the picks of the teams that need them most. This league has tons of talent throughout and there is lots of cash available. So the best teams tend to be able to retain their talent anyway. If draft picks get pushed down, then that makes it even harder for the lesser teams (like mine) who need the draft picks to improve.

I am still trying to figure a formula to compete in this league (bad market, no payroll budget, 2 total playoff appearances in team history) and having my draft picks "depressed" is not attractive to me. I admit this is a very selfish position! Sorry!!

***AndyP*** · 02-20-2014, 10:45 PM

I don't want to remove type B. I want things to stay the same. I think we're just fine as we are.

hickoxb2 · 02-21-2014, 02:59 AM

(02-20-2014, 09:52 PM)mattynokes Wrote: If we're to look at anything, I think we look at increasing the fallback prices. If people tend to think they're cheap and worth the gamble, let's up the ante! I'd say the height of where we'd got would be 18/10 and middle ground from where we're at now would be about 16/8.5.

I think this is the best solution to the issue at hand. It makes teams think harder about whether or not their borderline compensation guys are worth spending that kind of money on. I might even suggest higher than $18M/$10M like matty suggested. The best teams seem to have all kinds of money for FAs, so make them really evaluate the talent.

Also, I know it's kind of a radical notion, but pushing the Comp rounds back to the 3rd and 4th rounds instead of the 2nd and 3rd could help to slow the trend we have going on. It's not necessarily something I'd push too hard for, just something to think about.

rockybull · 02-21-2014, 04:51 AM

(02-21-2014, 02:59 AM)hickoxb2 Wrote:
(02-20-2014, 09:52 PM)mattynokes Wrote: If we're to look at anything, I think we look at increasing the fallback prices. If people tend to think they're cheap and worth the gamble, let's up the ante! I'd say the height of where we'd got would be 18/10 and middle ground from where we're at now would be about 16/8.5.

I think this is the best solution to the issue at hand. It makes teams think harder about whether or not their borderline compensation guys are worth spending that kind of money on. I might even suggest higher than $18M/$10M like matty suggested. The best teams seem to have all kinds of money for FAs, so make them really evaluate the talent.

Also, I know it's kind of a radical notion, but pushing the Comp rounds back to the 3rd and 4th rounds instead of the 2nd and 3rd could help to slow the trend we have going on. It's not necessarily something I'd push too hard for, just something to think about.

I agree with you and matty, make it harder and make teams think twice if they want to offer fallback. I'm saying this and I'm a low market team, but it should be like this though. 18/10 was the exact number I was thinking when I was reading and before I saw matty posted it. See how this goes. Don't allow mid season trades or guys traded for after Opening Day to receive any type of comp (like it currently is) and it shouldn't get out of control with comp picks going forward. That way you keep Type A and B fallbacks around.

Your comment about the picks is interesting, I'm ok with Type A being before 2nd round, but what could potentially be changed is Type B guys being pushed back where you pick after the 3rd round and before the 4th round. That's just a suggestion, I have no problem with it the way it currently is, though.

***Geaux Blue*** · 02-27-2014, 07:27 PM

The one thing I ask is that we have a full season to adjust to a new comp rule if that happens.

I'm fine with comp as it is but if we were to increase the comp money a little bit I wouldn't be upset with that.

***AndyP*** · 02-28-2014, 10:12 PM

(02-27-2014, 07:27 PM)Geaux Blue Wrote: The one thing I ask is that we have a full season to adjust to a new comp rule if that happens.

I'm fine with comp as it is but if we were to increase the comp money a little bit I wouldn't be upset with that.

This. We should just let things sort of ride out. I don't want to move things around and I'm not real interested in making traded players comp eligible. Either get comp or work out a deal.

***mattynokes*** · 03-13-2014, 09:20 PM

In the least I think raising comp to 16M (A) and 8.5M (B) is more than called for.