Onlybucs Fan Forums
July 31, 2014, 06:39:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Contact Us at onlybucs1 @ gmail.com

If you would like to join OBN please use the email addy above to let us know.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The draft pick compensation system sucks  (Read 3641 times)
WTM
Global Moderator
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9482



View Profile
« on: February 26, 2011, 10:04:24 PM »

In case you weren't sure whether the Pirates were getting screwed by this idiot system:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/02/top-100-prospects-drafted-with-compensation-picks.html
Logged
Steve Zielinski
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4067


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2011, 10:37:43 PM »

Another thing that sucks: MLB and the MLBPA will scrap the current system somewhere near to the time when the Pirates might benefit from the current inadequate system.
Logged

Steve Z
Piratesprospects
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1298



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2011, 11:12:34 PM »

I think A compensation system is a good thing to have, but the current system doesn't work.  You can get 1-2 picks for relievers, who probably wouldn't be worth one of those picks if there was the ability to trade draft picks.  You can get picks for guys who were on your team for just 1-2 months, or weren't even on your team at all (like Toronto and Olivo).

I think the biggest problem is that you can get picks for guys who you have no intention of re-signing.  How often do we hear about a team working out an agreement with a player to decline arbitration.  If you're saying that you don't need the player on your team, then why should you get compensation for losing the player?

The system is supposed to be set up to help teams like the Rays when they lose a guy like Carl Crawford.  The Rays drafted and developed Crawford, had him for his entire career (8 years so far?), and relied on him, but because they can't afford to out-bid the Red Sox, lost him through free agency.

Another problem is that they look for the best at each position, which is kind of silly, since not all positions are equal in value.  They should also avoid equalizing the positions so that they're all on the same scale.  For example, Adam Dunn was rated a 74.167.  Meanwhile, Matt Guerrier was rated a 79.569.  They're both Type A free agents, which means the team that loses Dunn gets a lower comp pick, and if the same team signs both players, Guerrier would get the first round pick, while Dunn would get the second round pick.  There's no way a reliever is more valuable than a guy like Dunn.

The same exists for Rafael Soriano.  Soriano was a 91.799.  The only person who was more valuable was Jayson Werth, who was 91.807.  Soriano was more valuable than anyone else, in a market that included Cliff Lee, Derek Jeter, Carl Crawford, etc.  The Rangers are lucky that the Yankees didn't sign Lee.  Because they signed Soriano, the Rangers would have gotten a second round pick for Lee, which would have been around pick 90.

One final thought, teams shouldn't just get compensation for losing a player regardless of what they do in the off-season.  All moves should balance out.  The Red Sox get 4 draft picks because they lost Adrian Beltre and Victor Martinez.  However, they signed Carl Crawford, which means they give up their first round pick.  In the end, they lose Beltre and Martinez and their first round pick (#24), but got two first round picks (#19, 26), two comp picks (#36, #40) and Carl Crawford.  That's a big inefficiency when you lose a Type A, sign a Type A, and end up getting an extra draft pick.  It becomes even bigger if you sign extra Type A picks, since you're only losing a 2nd round pick in that scenario.
Logged
Donny Yinzerski
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 166


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2011, 11:52:42 PM »

The most troubling part of this issue is that this topic gets absolutely no mainstream media play. I would guess that your garden variety fans think the Pirates have the 1st and 31st picks in the 2011 draft with no idea that, I believe, 4 teams will make at least 4 selections before the Pirates are on the clock a second time this June.

Also shame on the Bucs for not taking advantage of the system like the Red Sox have. It makes you question whether they should have held onto Bay and offered him arb with no intention of signing him. Would the two picks that would have come back be a better value than LaRoche, Moss, Hansen, and Morris? Probably.
Logged
81omar
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10141



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2011, 11:57:40 PM »

        The Bay trade was obviously bad,no need to but one thing to remember is if you keep someone like Bay over trading him for four players you're also spending 10+ million in extra salary PLUS the bonus for the draft pick so the difference is either the 4 players we got OR 12+ million and you get two low minor leaguers who are far from sure things
Logged
WTM
Global Moderator
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9482



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2011, 12:01:05 AM »

The fundamental problem with the current system is that it's set up to be a drag on FA salaries, not to enhance competition.  When you're more concerned with saving the Red Sox a few bucks than with giving everybody a fair shot, you're going to get a bad system.
Logged
Piratesprospects
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1298



View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2011, 12:40:36 AM »

The most troubling part of this issue is that this topic gets absolutely no mainstream media play. I would guess that your garden variety fans think the Pirates have the 1st and 31st picks in the 2011 draft with no idea that, I believe, 4 teams will make at least 4 selections before the Pirates are on the clock a second time this June.

Also shame on the Bucs for not taking advantage of the system like the Red Sox have. It makes you question whether they should have held onto Bay and offered him arb with no intention of signing him. Would the two picks that would have come back be a better value than LaRoche, Moss, Hansen, and Morris? Probably.

On the first part...

The interview we had with Coonelly mentioned his thoughts on how the compensation system needs to be changed.  It's too bad that this was ultimately ignored for a topic that is very meaningless at this point, and which has been discussed many times in the past.

On the Bay trade...

Assuming it all would have played out the same way (standings are the same, Mets sign Bay), the Pirates would have gotten the #36 and #57 picks in the 2010 draft.

The whole idea that this would have been better than the trade they got is a little bit hindsight, and a little bit of the new toy factor.  It's hindsight because we know how the trade has worked out.  It's also the new toy factor (or whatever you want to call it) because the comp picks are unproven, and also still have a chance to succeed.  So basically it's favorable because the trade that went down ended up poorly, and this route would still have a chance at success (although Morris can still make an impact).

One interesting note in the scenario above: I think the Pirates would have ended up taking Allie with the #36 pick, rather than the #52 pick.  I don't think they'd let him slide.  We know now that he would have fallen to #52, but I think they'd take him with the first opportunity.  So the real net return for Bay would have been the two second round picks.
Logged
IABucFan
Pirate Fan
*****
Online Online

Posts: 4818


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2011, 12:57:39 AM »

Also, lest we forget, Brian Morris had a terrific season last year and is clearly back on the prospect map.  I wouldn't call that trade a total bust as of right now.
Logged
markson33
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2120


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2011, 08:38:17 AM »

I would have liked to see NH make some trades that would build up some compensation picks.  If you are going to build through the draft you should do everything within your power to get the most picks you can.
Logged
Donny Yinzerski
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 166


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2011, 08:57:58 AM »

Also, lest we forget, Brian Morris had a terrific season last year and is clearly back on the prospect map.  I wouldn't call that trade a total bust as of right now.

I wasn't trying to bring out the Bay dead horse with my comment. I was trying to say that it would seem silly that a team should almost prefer to keep and lose a player to FA than deal him at a trade deadline.But if you are willing to spend some $$$, you can get two players you really like as opposed to taking some that a team is willing to part with. 

I would have liked to see NH make some trades that would build up some compensation picks.  If you are going to build through the draft you should do everything within your power to get the most picks you can.

Especially when you see your 2nd pick lose a ton of value because of all the sandwich picks and frankly, you had some "cap room" at the end of last season. I hate when they make trades like that in the NBA but when you are disadvantaged like the Bucs are, you need to play the game better than everyone else to keep even.

Logged
GoBucs21
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4996


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2011, 11:29:11 PM »

The fundamental problem with the current system is that it's set up to be a drag on FA salaries, not to enhance competition.  When you're more concerned with saving the Red Sox a few bucks than with giving everybody a fair shot, you're going to get a bad system.
I know the owners thought compensation would be a drag but could anyone but them think that a first round or supplemental pick would ever  hold FA costs down?  Would any sane GM really not sign a player like Pujols because he might lose a first round pick?  I'm not saying I disagree with you but the idea was dead from the first thought.

Its a different subject but related.  Even if compensation could have held FA costs down, any savings was killed by arbitration.  But again, the owners gave arbitration to players as a means to  hold FA costs down.

If the media gave it any play, they would talk about what a success it will be for teams like the Rays.  Even though they've lost some FAs, they are getting nearly a dozen picks to make up for the players lost.

Doing away with the compensation system won't work because it causes much more harm to small market teams than large.

The compensation system, as a means to hold cost down will never work.   What they need to do is revamp the current system to focus more on the teams that will get compensation for lost players and those that won't.  For me, compensation has to be tied to revenues.  Higher revenue teams (say top ten revenue teams) would get no picks for lost FAs. 

Another way to change the system is to re-define the current definitions of type A and B players.  The problem with that is that it is applicable to all, not just the large revenue teams.

A way to collectively bargain this would be to give up compensation for the owners by having the players give up arbitration.  I don't see that happening though.
Logged

People say I am ruthless. I am not ruthless. And if I find the man who is calling me ruthless, I shall destroy him.
Robert F. Kennedy

Moral courage is a more rare commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence.
Robert F. Kennedy
GoBucs21
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4996


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2011, 11:39:12 PM »

The most troubling part of this issue is that this topic gets absolutely no mainstream media play. I would guess that your garden variety fans think the Pirates have the 1st and 31st picks in the 2011 draft with no idea that, I believe, 4 teams will make at least 4 selections before the Pirates are on the clock a second time this June.

Also shame on the Bucs for not taking advantage of the system like the Red Sox have. It makes you question whether they should have held onto Bay and offered him arb with no intention of signing him. Would the two picks that would have come back be a better value than LaRoche, Moss, Hansen, and Morris? Probably.

On the first part...

The interview we had with Coonelly mentioned his thoughts on how the compensation system needs to be changed.  It's too bad that this was ultimately ignored for a topic that is very meaningless at this point, and which has been discussed many times in the past.

On the Bay trade...

Assuming it all would have played out the same way (standings are the same, Mets sign Bay), the Pirates would have gotten the #36 and #57 picks in the 2010 draft.

The whole idea that this would have been better than the trade they got is a little bit hindsight, and a little bit of the new toy factor.  It's hindsight because we know how the trade has worked out.  It's also the new toy factor (or whatever you want to call it) because the comp picks are unproven, and also still have a chance to succeed.  So basically it's favorable because the trade that went down ended up poorly, and this route would still have a chance at success (although Morris can still make an impact).

One interesting note in the scenario above: I think the Pirates would have ended up taking Allie with the #36 pick, rather than the #52 pick.  I don't think they'd let him slide.  We know now that he would have fallen to #52, but I think they'd take him with the first opportunity.  So the real net return for Bay would have been the two second round picks.
Do you have a link to this interview?  I would like to see what he recommended.

I didn't have a problem with the Bay trade at the time.  I thought NH took more risk than necessary but not much.  In hindsight, a fair way to evaluate a trade, it turned out very badly.  In hindsight, the trade is a disaster. Taking picks could have been too.

Going for picks, especially for a player like Bay should be the means of last resort. 

This area of compensation is another area where the ghost of DL still haunts the Pirates.  Not only did he fail to get compensation for losing guys like Reggie Sanders but worst of all, he failed to develop any player who, if they walked, would return compensation picks.
Logged

People say I am ruthless. I am not ruthless. And if I find the man who is calling me ruthless, I shall destroy him.
Robert F. Kennedy

Moral courage is a more rare commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence.
Robert F. Kennedy
gamecckfn
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4146


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2011, 12:25:13 AM »

Agreed on Sanders, I did not understand that.  Even if he accepted arbitration, he was productive enough to take the risk, and he did not slow down for a few years.  I do not think we have had to opportunity with any other players since.

Here is the much publicized article you asked about.

http://www.piratesprospects.com/2011/02/interview-with-frank-coonelly-follow-up-from-piratefest.html
Logged
Piratesprospects
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1298



View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2011, 01:13:16 AM »

The most troubling part of this issue is that this topic gets absolutely no mainstream media play. I would guess that your garden variety fans think the Pirates have the 1st and 31st picks in the 2011 draft with no idea that, I believe, 4 teams will make at least 4 selections before the Pirates are on the clock a second time this June.

Also shame on the Bucs for not taking advantage of the system like the Red Sox have. It makes you question whether they should have held onto Bay and offered him arb with no intention of signing him. Would the two picks that would have come back be a better value than LaRoche, Moss, Hansen, and Morris? Probably.

On the first part...

The interview we had with Coonelly mentioned his thoughts on how the compensation system needs to be changed.  It's too bad that this was ultimately ignored for a topic that is very meaningless at this point, and which has been discussed many times in the past.

On the Bay trade...

Assuming it all would have played out the same way (standings are the same, Mets sign Bay), the Pirates would have gotten the #36 and #57 picks in the 2010 draft.

The whole idea that this would have been better than the trade they got is a little bit hindsight, and a little bit of the new toy factor.  It's hindsight because we know how the trade has worked out.  It's also the new toy factor (or whatever you want to call it) because the comp picks are unproven, and also still have a chance to succeed.  So basically it's favorable because the trade that went down ended up poorly, and this route would still have a chance at success (although Morris can still make an impact).

One interesting note in the scenario above: I think the Pirates would have ended up taking Allie with the #36 pick, rather than the #52 pick.  I don't think they'd let him slide.  We know now that he would have fallen to #52, but I think they'd take him with the first opportunity.  So the real net return for Bay would have been the two second round picks.
Do you have a link to this interview?  I would like to see what he recommended.

I didn't have a problem with the Bay trade at the time.  I thought NH took more risk than necessary but not much.  In hindsight, a fair way to evaluate a trade, it turned out very badly.  In hindsight, the trade is a disaster. Taking picks could have been too.

Going for picks, especially for a player like Bay should be the means of last resort. 

This area of compensation is another area where the ghost of DL still haunts the Pirates.  Not only did he fail to get compensation for losing guys like Reggie Sanders but worst of all, he failed to develop any player who, if they walked, would return compensation picks.

The full interview is at:

http://www.piratesprospects.com/2011/02/interview-with-frank-coonelly-follow-up-from-piratefest.html

As for the compensation, I wonder how many losing teams actually go through the compensation process.  Most of the time you see winning teams keep their compensation eligible players, and for obvious reasons.  The losing team wants a trade return, while the winning team isn't going to get rid of anyone who could help them for the remainder of the season.
Logged
Piratesprospects
Pirate Fan
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1298



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2011, 01:15:49 AM »

Agreed on Sanders, I did not understand that.  Even if he accepted arbitration, he was productive enough to take the risk, and he did not slow down for a few years.  I do not think we have had to opportunity with any other players since.

Here is the much publicized article you asked about.

http://www.piratesprospects.com/2011/02/interview-with-frank-coonelly-follow-up-from-piratefest.html

Should have scrolled down one more.

I never understood Sanders.  They didn't trade him like everyone else, but they also didn't try to re-sign him or offer him arbitration to try and get a pick.  He signed a 2/$6 M deal with the Cardinals.  Then, they signed Raul Mondesi.  Letting Sanders go made no sense, and even if he wanted to leave, they could have tried to offer him arbitration.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Site hosted by Royal Technology Management

Page created in 0.2 seconds with 19 queries.