|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 3, 2014 8:35:16 GMT -5
MLB really should allow the trading of picks now that there's the slotting system ... maybe they could do it so teams would retain their overall pool of money if they trade their pick. Teams with high picks could trade down and spread their money around more players, while teams with lower picks could have a chance to grab premium talent if they wanted to put more of their eggs in that basket.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 3, 2014 11:29:15 GMT -5
MLB really should allow the trading of picks now that there's the slotting system ... maybe they could do it so teams would retain their overall pool of money if they trade their pick. Teams with high picks could trade down and spread their money around more players, while teams with lower picks could have a chance to grab premium talent if they wanted to put more of their eggs in that basket. Don't think that would work too well if teams aren't gaining slot money when moving up. I mean this already happens to some extent without trading picks.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 3, 2014 12:24:27 GMT -5
MLB really should allow the trading of picks now that there's the slotting system ... maybe they could do it so teams would retain their overall pool of money if they trade their pick. Teams with high picks could trade down and spread their money around more players, while teams with lower picks could have a chance to grab premium talent if they wanted to put more of their eggs in that basket. Don't think that would work too well if teams aren't gaining slot money when moving up. I mean this already happens to some extent without trading picks. That, and the slot values of the first few picks are set with the idea that there is extra money built in for those teams to spread around. The first four picks this year had slot values of $7,922,100; $6,821,800; $5,721,500; $4,621,200. From there it leveled out quickly: $3,851,000; $3,575,900; $3,300,900; $3,190,800. The idea there is definitely not that the #1 pick was worth $3.3M more than the #4 pick.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 3, 2014 13:02:39 GMT -5
If we sign a free agent with a qualifying offer, we only give up a second round pick. While the team drafting 12th would lose their 1st round pick if they sign a free agent with a qualifying offer.
Is that really a fair system?
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Oct 3, 2014 13:10:10 GMT -5
Some of us are old enough to remember the horrible Red Sox teams of the mid-50's and early 60's...losing is not fun. Having horrible management (during those days) was worse because it did not seem that anyone cared. Dick O'Connell was a life saver. Between the incompetent, racist leadership of Pinky Higgins and the mistake-filled tenure of Haywood Sullivan, O'Connell was a shining light. Hopelessness is a bad team with a bad GM, bad owner(s) and little money. The current team was bad in 2014 (in no small part because of injuries), but the management and ownership are strong and there is money to be spent.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Oct 3, 2014 13:12:47 GMT -5
If we sign a free agent with a qualifying offer, we only give up a second round pick. While the team drafting 12th would lose their 1st round pick if they sign a free agent with a qualifying offer. Is that really a fair system? I think so. I mean, maybe the cutoff number is arbitrary (bottom 10 teams), but part of the idea was to encourage bad teams to improve via free agency. If you are losing a top 10 pick to do so, you are giving up tremendous value to sign a free agent, giving teams that are already good an edge in free agency, which, in turn, keeps bad teams bad and good teams good.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Oct 3, 2014 15:05:54 GMT -5
Arbitrary to me should be defined as "any team making the playoffs either by winning the division or via wildcard." If you miss out you have the option to sign a free agent with a protected pick. If you make the playoffs you would lose your first rounder. Price of success. Problem here is a team who finishes 18th worst loses less actual value assets then a team who finishes 5th worst which is why I believe the cutoff has been the top 10. Maybe a better cutoff is a moving one. Say any team finishing below .500?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Oct 3, 2014 15:37:40 GMT -5
I think they should scrap the entire compensation system along with the bonus allotment and just let team spen whatever they want in the draft and Internationally. Viva la free markets, this is America darn it, land of the free and all that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 3, 2014 16:15:01 GMT -5
I think they should scrap the entire compensation system along with the bonus allotment and just let team spen whatever they want in the draft and Internationally. Viva la free markets, this is America darn it, land of the free and all that. And have 5 teams in NY and 5 teams in LA, that's it. Baseball isn't a free market. I know you were joking...
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 3, 2014 16:24:08 GMT -5
If we sign a free agent with a qualifying offer, we only give up a second round pick. While the team drafting 12th would lose their 1st round pick if they sign a free agent with a qualifying offer. Is that really a fair system? You're going to have that no matter where you draw the line though, if you're drawing one. Here, sure, teams with the first 10 picks, assuming they don't have a compensation pick to give up (for example, the Yankees gave one up last year) or a competitive balance pick to give up, get something of a cushion (this year, the second round started with pick #42, so the Mets forfeited pick #51 when they signed Granderson instead of pick 10). The system may be flawed, but it's not because of "fairness." The draft is designed to benefit the teams with the worst record, and protecting the first 10 picks advances that aim. Couldn't you say it's not fair that the team with the best record only had to give up the 31st pick this year if it signed a free agent while the Red Sox would have to give up the 7th pick if they did? If you protect the whole first round, then wouldn't that mean teams with competitive balance picks, or teams that got QO compensation picks, would similarly be at a disadvantage?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 3, 2014 16:36:44 GMT -5
Arbitrary to me should be defined as "any team making the playoffs either by winning the division or via wildcard." If you miss out you have the option to sign a free agent with a protected pick. If you make the playoffs you would lose your first rounder. Price of success. Problem here is a team who finishes 18th worst loses less actual value assets then a team who finishes 5th worst which is why I believe the cutoff has been the top 10. Maybe a better cutoff is a moving one. Say any team finishing below .500? Well any system can be gamed to some extent, and this one would be ripe for it. Short of qualifying for the playoffs with a .500 record, teams with a mediocre season going would have every incentive to finish below .500. That would probably lead to a lot of crummy baseball, I think. I know the argument can be made that it happens now, but you'd be kicking the door open for a lot more teams to try and squeeze through.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 3, 2014 17:07:36 GMT -5
Yeah, I think that the only non-arbitrary line is playoff qualification. Otherwise, there are incentives to game the system and lose on purpose (moreso than the general incentive to lose on purpose to get a higher draft pick).
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 4, 2014 12:23:15 GMT -5
Yeah, I think that the only non-arbitrary line is playoff qualification. Otherwise, there are incentives to game the system and lose on purpose (moreso than the general incentive to lose on purpose to get a higher draft pick). I agree. Non playoff teams should all have protected first round picks.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Oct 4, 2014 12:46:30 GMT -5
Individual teams want all picks protected, collectively they want none, and the union wants all. It's all arbitrary and negotiation.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Feb 1, 2015 23:16:12 GMT -5
Can we start one of these threads for the Patriots? What was I thinking?
|
|