|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 13, 2015 18:48:02 GMT -5
I think Desmond should considering accepting the QO. He had a really rough year, and if he gambles on himself to bounce back, then he could be in for a big pay day (5yr/100M+). And the offer is enough that he could live off of it for quite a while if his performance fell-off entirely. Today was the deadline to accept or decline. He declined. The above is the final list. My bad for being unclear. Gotcha - thanks for the list. Will be interesting to see what Desmond makes on the open market after the down year (+ draft pick requirement). I guess next question is 'who is this year's post-opening day signing'? Or with the three accepted QO, will everyone left get a contract?
|
|
|
Post by brandon077 on Nov 13, 2015 19:09:38 GMT -5
Wieters accepting was shocking, but I guess he preferred to go with what he was comfortable and go into free agency normally next season. Good choice for Anderson, I didn't see him finding as good a fit on the open market.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 13, 2015 19:33:01 GMT -5
The QO system sucks. There's no way to sugarcoat it. It sucks that a guy like Jordan Zimmermann, a good but non-elite pitcher who probably will only get one crack at free agency in his prime, gets devalued by getting attached to a draft pick. It sucks that getting a protected pick is tied to the totally arbitrary Top 10 picks, rather than the sensible playoff/non-playoff cutoff. It sucks that the compensation system actually incentivizes signing multiple protected free agents, because the first one you sign costs you a first-round pick, but the fourth one costs only a fourth-round pick. Just an all-around awful system. You'd think Roger Goodell came up with it. And here's an absolutely fair and much simpler system. Once all the FAs have been signed, every team in MLB has a salary debit or credit for the appropriate number of future years. For instance, if Hill signs a 2/12$M deal and we sign Zimmerman to a 4/$80M deal, and that's all we do, we have a -14M, -14M, -20M, -20M balance over the next 4 years. Every year, at draft time, a team's balance for that year is multiplied by some fixed ratio, determined by a panel of sabermetricians, and applied to the team's total draft bonus pool. Teams that went over in a given year would get the overage plus X percent deducted from next year's pool, so there's no way to outspend the system long-term. (In order to be fair to the amateurs, teams that went under their pool in any year would get that balance added, but without the multiplier. This would also allow all of MLB to spend less money on weak draft classes and more on strong ones.) In one version of this, there are no extra picks created. Teams could, however, forfeit or pass on any pick in order to get under their limit. You could have them forfeit picks in advance, but it would make it much more interesting and exciting if instead they were able to pass on the pick at draft time. You might have a team in some year targeting a guy with a given high pick, with the idea that they draft him if available and then pass on their 2nd, 3rd, and maybe 4th picks (or use them for dirt-cheap senior signs), and pass on him if he's taken already. Cool drama, plus extra flexibility. In another version, you'd also allow teams with enough credit to create picks at the end of the first round. But there are advantages to having the 1st pick in the second round always be the same slot. For one thing, it makes it easier to start allowing the trading of picks, because they would have more predictable value. Edit: One of the easiest and fairest way for teams to coordinate their draft pool budgets with their draft strategy is to, in fact, allow the trading of next year's picks. A team that had $X less in their pool could swap their pick straight-up with a team that had $X more, which is to say, by swapping draft slots in order to match their resulting individual slot recommendations to their budget. This is equivalent to what would likely happen anyway: the first team grabs the cheaper guy they like with, say, the 10 pick, and then the better guy gets taken over-slot with the 20 pick. Instead of all that nonsense, let teams re-arrange their picks to match the recommendations. GMs and teams would like what that does to the negotiation process, I think. In the current system, you could lose 8 free agents, all of whom were just short of being good enough to be offered a QO, and get no compensation, whereas the team with one FA who just barely gets a QO gets a pick. That's a further craziness you left out! In this system, every FA earns credit for the team he leaves and costs the team who signs him, in exact proportion to their actual market value.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 13, 2015 22:13:59 GMT -5
I didn't read the above proposal very carefully, but I'll say that the NFL's system for figuring out draft pick compensation (largely based on contracts gained and lost over the course of the offseason) is a much superior system. Not to say that the NFL system is perfect (there are lots of little things I'd criticize about it), but it makes far more sense than the QO system does.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Nov 13, 2015 23:40:44 GMT -5
There is only 1 player on that list I want the Red Sox giving up the #12 pick for.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Nov 14, 2015 9:11:00 GMT -5
I didn't read the above proposal very carefully, but I'll say that the NFL's system for figuring out draft pick compensation (largely based on contracts gained and lost over the course of the offseason) is a much superior system. Not to say that the NFL system is perfect (there are lots of little things I'd criticize about it), but it makes far more sense than the QO system does. And then you remember that the net effect of the NFL system is that good teams get even better while bad teams stay bad, and you wonder why such a system is necessary in the first place.
|
|