Comments on: Fixing the free agent compensation system

By: Tony A

Tony A — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:52:24 +0000

I have to agree with Lanny and Marvin Miller: teams should not be rewarded for not resigning a player whose contract has expired, nor should teams be punished for signing a player who is not under contract elsewhere. What part of the term “Free Agent” doesn’t MLB understand, and why should such ignorance be coddled?

By: Niko

Niko — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:49:27 +0000

Instead of Forfeiting a pick for signing a player, why not lower the value of the highest (or second-best) pick for signing a player. The number of slots lower would depend on the value of the player (Elias?) and would hurt a team picking low in the first round (like the Rays) just as much as a team picking high (like the Bucs.)

By: joetrim

joetrim — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:47:03 +0000

this is the smartest and most concise answer to the problems everybody is trying to solve. I’m free ,um , if you’ll just untie me. Free is free .you have me for 6 years .If you like me ,Payme ,if not get out of the way.

By: joe

joe — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:35:25 +0000

Instead of the tiers being based on age, I would base them on the length of contract signed. For example: Tier one might be five or more years, Tier two 3 and 4, and Tier three 1 or 2. This takes into account the player’s age as well as any health risk. A team would be more likely to take a chance on Varitek or Sheets if they only had to give up a 3rd round pick for instance instead of a first round.

By: Tommy

Tommy — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:17:20 +0000

I suspect the MLBPA wouldn’t agree to this (or at least would put up resistance) because it would limit the salaries at the top of the scale for free agents. On the other hand, the quality of the picks might actually go down, because it’s possible to get a high-teens pick as compensation. In the end, maybe it’s true that a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy. Definitely a fascinating proposal.

By: Preston

Preston — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:29:25 +0000

Free agent compensation, as I understand it (and I’m not saying I endorse this reasoning), is meant to reward teams that do a good job developing talent but are unable financially to sign those players once they hit free agency. Given that that is the case, I’m not sure why compensation should be offered at all for players like Manny Ramirez, Derek Lowe, etc. How about if compensation was only given for players who had never previously filed for free agency? That rewards teams for the young talent they have developed/traded for (and doesn’t even penalize them for locking that talent up to long term contracts before they hit free agency – those players would eventually also give compensation when they left), but not for having the money to throw around in free agency a few years before. This potentially avoids the age tiers, with which, I have to admit, I’m uncomfortable, as they would create some odd situations – think about Oliver Perez being Tier 1, A.J. Burnett being Tier 2, and Derek Lowe being Tier 3 – now we’re depressing Perez’s value instead of someone like Varitek.

By: Youth Baseball Parks Blog » Blog Archive » Compensation Correction

Youth Baseball Parks Blog » Blog Archive » Compensation Correction — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:28:27 +0000

[...] Ave. Blues makes some good suggestions for improving the way teams are compensated for losing free agents. However, I would argue that compensation should be eliminated. The point of free agency was to [...]

By: drdr

drdr — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:08:56 +0000

and, of course, it would probably significantly lower the number of players which teams could be compensated for, because many teams would fall below their playoff ranking (Baltimore would probably rarely see any compensation, Texas too).

By: drdr

drdr — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:06:23 +0000

Some sort of compensation for free agents lost is a good idea, but there should not be any penalty for signing free agents. The whole compensation process wasn’t invented to help teams that lost FA’s, but to penalize teams that sign them thereby reducing FA’s salaries. I would remove any penalty and offer compensation for any team that lost FA based on previous season’s success – every team that finished equal or better in real standings compared to their payroll placement qualifies for compensation. So, NYY would get compensation only if they finish first in regular season, BOSox only if they finish first or second, Marlins if they don’t finish last. Head to head tiebreakers apply. Compensation should be similar to what you suggest, but with the return of group C. so, something like: top 20% – 2 supp picks, in 1st and 3rd part of comp round, next 15% – 1 pick in 2nd part, last 15% – 1 pick in the fourth part. Compensation picks sorted by rankings. Of course, only if arbitration is offered. It wouldn’t inflate the supplemental round much compared to your proposal, because now A’s are first 20%, and B’s next 20′%, so that would only add those FA’s that are between 40th and 50th percentile at their positions.

By: dan l

dan l — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 03:40:44 +0000

Your plan is just more stupid crap! End all compensation asap. If you don’t want to sign your star players then trade them for other players or lose them for nothing.

Seems silly to me that if the worst team gets the first pick shouldn’t they also get the 31st pick as well? That does not happen so the losing teams lose high second round picks so other teams get compensation from not trading potential free agents?