Compensation Picks

by badradiorules on Aug 22, 2008 6:40 PM CDT Comment 6 comments

Geoff Young over at The Hardball Times has a piece up called Free Agent Overcompensation. It’s an interesting look at some of the instances where a compensatory draft pick has worked out considerably better than free Agent signed.

There is a Ranger mention included. The Seattle Mariners took Mark Langston with their second round pick in 1981 that they received for the Rangers signing away free agent…..the great Bill Stein. Sad.

On the right hand side, he also lists several instances where the free agent worked out much better than the draft picks that were received. It’s definitely not one sided.

I happen to think that draft pick compensation needs to either go away or be dialed down a notch or two. It no longer serves its intended purpose as most of the have-nots trade their top players before they make it to free agency. It has both really helped and really hurt the Rangers this decade. What do you think?

Poll

What should MLB do with draft pick compensation?

Keep it the way it is.

28 votes

Re-tweak it.

8 votes

Do away with it completely.

3 votes

39 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Keep It.

I think the draft pick compensation adds help to the fact that draft picks cannot be traded. It makes trading for a type A free agent at the end of the year worth while for a non-contending team. It adds more options for the GM.

by peachygbc_1 on Aug 22, 2008 9:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

-1

its still illogical for a non-contending team to trade for a type A free agent, and i hate how picks can’t be traded. I voted before thinking this one completely through. If the mlb allowed tradeable picks, i definitely think that overall player movement would significantly increase, and teams would be satisfied, since more players could be moved to contending teams, while non-contending teams could get additional compensation.

baseBALLIN!

by kevzta on Aug 22, 2008 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the non contending teams would get compensation by getting picks acquired through trades.

baseBALLIN!

by kevzta on Aug 22, 2008 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

but

draft picks are even riskier than prospects. Why would a non-contending team accept a couple picks over a couple prospects?

I still think free agent compensation works pretty well and that it’s a lot more fair than the trading of draft picks. Even if teams trade a guy before they’re a free agent and therefore don’t get the compensation, that eventual compensation is added on to the value of the guy they’re trading away. As a result, a team might get a Matt Harrison and/or Beau Jones added to the deal. I’m not in the know about these things, but I would think GM’s figure these things in to the requested return for the guy they’re giving up.

Besides, if draft picks are traded to the small market teams for their expensive Boras-type guys, they now have to pay the draft bonuses for their soon-to-be prospects. That is becoming an increasingly difficult thing to do. If they just trade their guy for minor league prospects, the bonuses have already been paid, and they know a bit about how the prospects have adjusted to pro ball.

by naropean on Aug 23, 2008 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and

I think I tore a hole in my own argument by talking up the risk of draft picks and bonuses. But I mean to differentiate between the risks of draft pick compensation and getting draft picks back in a trade. With the current plan, everyone has the same risks…you lose a good player, you get a pick or two. It applies to everyone in a uniform manner. Kansas City has the same situation as Boston if the former loses Greinke and the latter loses Lester to free agency (obviously a long ways away).

But when trades enter into the equation, there are winners and there are losers. Boston can afford to be losers, because they have the money to fix their mistakes. Kansas City, on the other hand, can’t (or won’t—isn’t their owner super rich?) afford to be losers. Trading for picks as opposed to players is more risky, and therefore it is a greater possibility to “lose” on that end of the trade-Boras-guy deal.

Um…not to mention the whole Eli Manning/John Elway scenarios that could have every top prospect demand to be traded to the top teams or else not sign. It’s hard enough to sign these draft picks without worrying about that whole situation.

And that concludes my 23% substance, 77% rambling incoherence of an opinion.

by naropean on Aug 23, 2008 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think...

..there needs to be mandatory slotting so wealthy teams don’t get to take the best players at the end of the 1st round…

I blame it not on Ron Washington, but on society. Society is to blame. And Ron Washington. ~Ken Tremendous on Ron Washington sac bunting in the 11th vs LAA

by ivysafety39 on Aug 23, 2008 8:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs