Type B Compensation

***mattynokes*** · (This post was last modified: 03-22-2016, 10:05 PM by mattynokes.)

I'm not sure what I've comp'd has anything to do with it, but just to set the record straight, I've comp'd:

SP Dwight (56) - Signed as comp pick the year prior
3B Laverty (58) - Acquired in trade
SP Quinones (59) - Acquired in trade and re-signed
3B Waterdown (62) - Signed as normal FA

I fail to see what I'm offending. Every few years I get a comp pick and that is somehow wrong? Or even if true, how it means I can't support suppressing Type B FAs a little?

We have many others who employ the tactic of sign a guy for a year or two and then throw them back into comp after that. There's nothing wrong with them doing that at the time, the system allowed for it. There's been a trend over the last few seasons of double digit Type B FAs and now it's exploded to over 30 (I believe). The tactic is now looking cheap as ever, and as Andy pointed out compensation is meant for players that you invested in. Not a lucky gamble and essentially flipped a 6th round pick for a future 3rd round pick.

This isn't going to change a lot, but it will prevent the rentals from becoming compensation worthy. I highly doubt people will opt to retain all of the talent just because they aren't getting compensation. At 2 years I don't comp Spitzer (asked around 4.5M/4 to re-sign) or Waterdown (asked around 7M/4 to re-sign) and released them to FA. The cost to re-sign them is quite a burden. If teams do re-sign these types, then FA isn't missing out on much and it gets players paid (successfully getting money out of the game).

rockybull · 03-22-2016, 10:16 PM

i fully support this from matty and andy, i think it's great for the league.

mike · 03-22-2016, 10:29 PM

(03-22-2016, 09:51 PM)mattynokes Wrote: The tactic is now looking cheap as ever, and as Andy pointed out compensation is meant for players that you invested in. Not a lucky gamble and essentially flipped a 6th round pick for a future 3rd round pick.

I fail to see why that exactly is a bad thing? It's keeping FA populated which is one of the main functions of a comp system. It's allowing teams to hold on to that talent and keep competitive rather than dealing that piece away come deadline. Maybe they will still enter the FA pool maybe they won't. Right now they are. You say they won't be missing much by having those bottom types cut out but when that could mean 10 guys not hitting FA that could be a big swing. You could be right and you could be wrong in how this actually plays out but why test the waters when we haven't seen any outcry about it? Until we start seeing those low level teams complaining that their picks are getting pushed back it doesn't seem like an issue and like I said before a win-win for everyone involved.

hickoxb2 · 03-22-2016, 11:45 PM

Upping Comp minimum years probably won't make a huge change. Most comp guys are still going to go back into the pool after 2 years instead of two. The rare exceptions are going to be older guys who GMs are hoping to get something for, but most FAs aren't going to decline enough to not get comp'd again. With this change, an 86 Outfielder is just going to get comp'd every other year, not every year. While I see points to both sides, this seems like a solution to something that's not a problem. What I'm seeing as the main problem (if there is one) is that people are getting Draft Pick "upgrades" for not-exactly-comp-caliber players. If you want to prevent guys from getting Comp'd every year, make a rule that says you can't comp a guy you just signed for comp the year before. That gets rid of the issue of repeat comp guys and keeps GMs honest. That would eliminate the problem without angering the masses.

***mattynokes*** · 03-23-2016, 12:04 PM

Making Type B two years is more effective than not allowing players to be offered fallback in back-to-back years as people could still send an unworthy player in hopes that he gets a one year deal. There's also more policing and checks involved in just simply not allowing fallback in back-to-back years.

***AndyP*** · 03-23-2016, 12:13 PM

If this isn't a big deal......why is this a big deal?

cadmus2166 · 03-23-2016, 01:16 PM

I agree with Andy and Matty that the new rules will be good for the league. This really isn't a big deal at all.

jhc54 · 03-23-2016, 02:42 PM

This might be a terrible idea. But how about one year with a second year player option. It would do essentially the same thing but give some control to the game for whether or not the player believes they can get a better contract on the market. I know we don't tend to use options but it could work in this case. Then again it could be a terrible idea too.

I'm fine with the two years. Just thought a one year plus one year player option would be kinda cool (an added variable).

hickoxb2 · 03-23-2016, 08:20 PM

I have no real issues with either, I just don't know that it's going to make any substantial change.

***AndyP*** · 03-23-2016, 08:29 PM

(03-23-2016, 08:20 PM)hickoxb2 Wrote: I have no real issues with either, I just don't know that it's going to make any substantial change.

It may not, I don't think it's a substantial enough change that will shake the boat too much. If it does anything, it should shave off the bottom 10-20% of comp B players. Some years that won't be a lot, some years it will be significant.