|
Post by malynn19 on Mar 25, 2014 15:25:01 GMT -5
The Red Sox and most fans would prefer to"develop" our own stars, instead of going the Yankee route. We just won the WS and we have a top five system, we are not the Rays (they never won anything) who got most of their top picks when the team was bad. Its like that Grantland Article : The Red Sox are Moneyball with Money. So enjoy what we have, because if not Xander then someone else in our system will be that "Superstar". Stop wishing for Stanton, or Tulo or Cargo, give what we have a chance if it doesn't work then we can go get your superstar, since we have the resources.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 25, 2014 16:41:12 GMT -5
I don't see any need for changing the compensation side of the equation, only the lost pick side. You could for example, have the Sox getting a pick for Drew without the signing team having to lose a pick. There's really no reason to tie a gained pick to a lost pick. The reason for tying the gained pick to a lost pick is to avoid incentivizing teams into signing other teams free agents over their own FA in order to gain an extra pick. This would reduce long term players in a given city, which is bad for the fans, the players and possibly the teams as well. This may also increase the incentive of short term contracts; which the Player's Union really wouldn't like. Edit: looks like raftsox already touched on this
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 25, 2014 18:28:34 GMT -5
The Red Sox and most fans would prefer to"develop" our own stars, instead of going the Yankee route. We just won the WS and we have a top five system, we are not the Rays (they never won anything) who got most of their top picks when the team was bad. Its like that Grantland Article : The Red Sox are Moneyball with Money. So enjoy what we have, because if not Xander then someone else in our system will be that "Superstar". Stop wishing for Stanton, or Tulo or Cargo, give what we have a chance if it doesn't work then we can go get your superstar, since we have the resources. Especially when those 3 guys can't play a full season healthy.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 25, 2014 21:14:53 GMT -5
The Red Sox and most fans would prefer to"develop" our own stars, instead of going the Yankee route. We just won the WS and we have a top five system, we are not the Rays (they never won anything) who got most of their top picks when the team was bad. Its like that Grantland Article : The Red Sox are Moneyball with Money. So enjoy what we have, because if not Xander then someone else in our system will be that "Superstar". Stop wishing for Stanton, or Tulo or Cargo, give what we have a chance if it doesn't work then we can go get your superstar, since we have the resources. I understand this wish by the fans, and I am among those who love watching the Sox develop their own players but I think it''s practically impossible to construct a team to win the World Series this way within the current constraints of the draft and international signing rules. You have to make some trades and buy a few few agents to make it all work. This obviously doesn't mean spending a half-billion dollars in the off season like the Yankees, but some deals are necessary.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Mar 25, 2014 21:52:08 GMT -5
And the Red Sox will sign free agents when they feel like it. I mean I don't think they have a manifesto where they don't sign any free agent or are against it. It's about going after the right free agents, and sometimes that's not as sexy. Good to have you back Guidas
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Mar 27, 2014 10:08:48 GMT -5
I'd like to see MLB adopt the NFL model to draft pick compensation. Everybody keeps their picks when you sign free agents. You can trade em if you want. Supplemental picks are awarded to teams based on the amount of money the players they lost signed for. Takes the stupid qualifying offer out of the equation. I'd like that if I were a GM. Allows free agents to move more freely based on the market demands. Teams wouldn't have to worry about losing the precious draft pick. I would think players and agents would love it. Don't really see why teams would be against it. Maybe, small market teams. But, they get their supplemental pick like they do now when they lose a good player.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 27, 2014 10:13:20 GMT -5
I'd like to see MLB adopt the NFL model to draft pick compensation. Everybody keeps their picks when you sign free agents. You can trade em if you want. Supplemental picks are awarded to teams based on the amount of money the players they lost signed for. Takes the stupid qualifying offer out of the equation. I'd like that if I were a GM. Allows free agents to move more freely based on the market demands. Teams wouldn't have to worry about losing the precious draft pick. I would think players and agents would love it. Don't really see why teams would be against it. Maybe, small market teams. But, they get their supplemental pick like they do now when they lose a good player. That's exactly what they used to have.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Mar 27, 2014 10:30:35 GMT -5
I'd like to see MLB adopt the NFL model to draft pick compensation. Everybody keeps their picks when you sign free agents. You can trade em if you want. Supplemental picks are awarded to teams based on the amount of money the players they lost signed for. Takes the stupid qualifying offer out of the equation. I'd like that if I were a GM. Allows free agents to move more freely based on the market demands. Teams wouldn't have to worry about losing the precious draft pick. I would think players and agents would love it. Don't really see why teams would be against it. Maybe, small market teams. But, they get their supplemental pick like they do now when they lose a good player. That's exactly what they used to have. I thought teams always lost their picks when they sign a Type A. At least for the past 30 years or so.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 27, 2014 10:35:38 GMT -5
That's exactly what they used to have. I thought teams always lost their picks when they sign a Type A. At least for the past 30 years or so. Yeah, gregblossersbelly has it right, teams signing a Type A free agent has always had to give up a first-round pick: www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/07/free-agent-comp.html
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 27, 2014 10:38:26 GMT -5
Compensation schemes just don't work. They sound good in theory, but they end up with all kinds of unintended consequences, and they end up helping the larger market teams. In the two years of the current QO compensation system, here are the teams that have been awarded compensation picks, with their current payroll ranking
Two picks: Yankees (2nd) Rangers (9th) Braves (12th) Cardinals (14th)
One pick: Red Sox (4th) Reds (15th) Royals (17th) Indians (26th) Rays (27th)
Of the 13 compensation picks given, 10 have gone to teams in the top-half in payroll. It's a better system than the previous one, since it doesn't actively incentivize signing another team's free agents in lieu of your own, but it still benefits rich teams. Just get rid of it.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Mar 27, 2014 10:55:53 GMT -5
The NFL has a 2-part and multi-tiered system that adresses many of the problems we have (or at least the players have) with the fairness of the current MLB system. For first-time free agents, there are multiple levels of QO's, tied to different levels of draft picks. For second-time FA's the draft pick compensation is tied to a player's final contract. I believe (and have been saying for two years now) that the MLB ought to look towards this type of system in the future so that more teams get compensated for home-grown talent, but also so that "tweener" FA's aren't stuck in endless 1-year contracts. I think as jimed said above that three tiers of QO's would basically do the trick.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Mar 27, 2014 11:38:03 GMT -5
Once a player does his 6 years, there should only be unrestricted free agency. No fear of losing picks for teams who sign players.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Mar 27, 2014 12:13:14 GMT -5
Everyone is talking about the players, players, players... then the small market, small market, small market. This is just plain wrong. All the teams have to invest time and money into developing players and it is expensive for them any way you look at it plus they then have to consider marketing tactics in their quest to pay for all the development. The executives seem to agree (rightfully so) that marketing their own players over a longer period pays off better with the average fans reactions. The longer the players are with the team the better the sales, this is the main reason that they NEGOTIATED the compensation and if the players want to change that they must renegotiate that and like it was stated last week they will have to give up something to take back that compensation.
Now the small market teams are already getting the best of the larger teams with luxury tax, revenue sharing, extra draft picks, and higher draft picks (international draft monies also) when and if they do bad. The large market teams deserve to get something back for all their concessions and this is a fair way as it was stated last week in the news. Small market teams also aren't even paying their revenue sharing monies back in player salary much anyway, that is going to make tougher negotiations (as all owners won't agree) such as "over more arbitration years for compensation pick concessions" for example harder to agree upon for the players to give up the one or two players who lost almost nothing this year in lost salary. The one-sided arguments here for the players only aren't going to be debated by the union and owners even. It has to be give and take so we need to consider that here to be fair.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 27, 2014 12:19:36 GMT -5
Here's my super-simple comp pick proposal, modeled after the NFL: each offseason, add up all total guaranteed money committed by a team to players who were free agents of other teams. Then add up all total guaranteed money committed by other teams to free agents of that team. Subtract A from B. Give the five teams with the biggest difference compensation picks between the first and second round. Give the next five teams with the biggest difference compensation picks between the second and third round. No team loses picks, and re-signing your own free agents doesn't factor in to either equation.
It's simple, automated, doesn't hurt free agent salaries, and has relatively few unintended consequences. Teams that lose the most big-money free agents benefit, while teams that sign big-money free agents don't. The only real negative I can see is that it may encourage teams to take on money through trades rather than through spending in free agency. It may also encourage teams on the margins to not spend in free agency to grab a better comp pick and provides a relatively small disincentive to teams re-signing their own free agents (a la the Red Sox with Ellsbury this year), but I think those problems exist to some degree with any compensation system, and the owners seem intent on including one.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Mar 27, 2014 12:34:59 GMT -5
And all free agent NFL type contracts are NON-guaranteed then.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Mar 27, 2014 13:05:53 GMT -5
I'd like to see MLB adopt the NFL model to draft pick compensation. Everybody keeps their picks when you sign free agents. You can trade em if you want. Supplemental picks are awarded to teams based on the amount of money the players they lost signed for. Takes the stupid qualifying offer out of the equation. I'd like that if I were a GM. Allows free agents to move more freely based on the market demands. Teams wouldn't have to worry about losing the precious draft pick. I would think players and agents would love it. Don't really see why teams would be against it. Maybe, small market teams. But, they get their supplemental pick like they do now when they lose a good player. MLB cannot follow the NFL model. ALL NFL games are national therefore all of the TV money is distributed evenly. The NFL has a hard salary cap and a hard salary floor, MLB does not. The money structure is fundamentally different. MLB is interested in promoting parity as much as possible which means that you need to compensate lower revenue/poor record teams when they lose a player. In the NFL it's hard not to have parity when everyone works in the same narrow team salary range. Winners and losers depend much more on intelligent drafting, coaching and play calling. I'd like to see a salary floor tied into the next CBA in addition to the tiered compensation system I suggest on the first page of this thread.
|
|