Jump to content

The Comp draft pick is hurting free agency.


bpilktree

Recommended Posts

I understand the comp pick but after looking at the affects the last few years it seems to be hurting not only some players but also causes free agency to drag on much longer. There are alot of players that have not signed and everytime i read a comment it is we don't want to loose the pick. Morales for example would most likely be signed if a team didn't have to give up a pick. Jimminez and Santana cost teams picksa so they are reluctant to get a deal right now. This then is causing a contract to Garza to take longer beacause his agent doesn't want him singing for less then those guys later on when his client doesn't cost a team a pick. I know Tanaka is not helping the situation but there are a bunch of teams that are not in on him but still not making much progress with the other three.

I would imagine this does not help the playersw either. I am sure GM's are using that by saying we will offer you this but don't want to go higher because we loose a draft pick and also draft money. I doubt it happens but i have read two reports that say Morales may stay a free agent until after the draft because a team does not want to loose a pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The comp-draft pick is a collectively bargained process to get rid of the type designations of free agents, which will continue to be compensated for as they always have. Much better than having middle relievers as free agents that receive compensation because they are designated type A or type B. I am waiting for a player to accept a qualifying offer. It will then get much smoother for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd much rather baseball do this more like football.

Let's say team x loses players which cost $200 million for other teams. However the same team commits $250 million to new payroll. Under baseball's rules, this scenario could result in that team losing a 1st, 2nd and 3rd (hypothetically) but gaining something like three 1st round draft picks. This is a net gain even though their outlays exceeded their losses.

Even with the recent changes, it gives more flexibility to bigger spending teams.

If instead, teams were rated based on their net of gained or lost payroll, and then awarded or docked picks according to that net, you'd have a much more equitable system. Moreover, you'd promote more stability in free agency because teams wouldn't have the incentive to let guys go or hold them hostage for a draft pick. What you wouldn't get is home team control over their own players like Seattle has over Morales. That's good for people like Morales and Lohse, but it could definitely be bad for teams like the Orioles when they want to keep their own young players.

Personally, I wouldn't care. Good franchises have to lock up or trade their own players before they get to FA. That's the system now even with these rules. It would just be exacerbated under a new system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was kind of the point wasn't it? To reign in FA.

No. Just to eliminate the broken system that prefaced it. The guys who are hurt by picks are hurt by their agents who wanted multi year deals to get commission on. Not the pick attached. The players still dangling were not probably worth the 15 million. And the market is teaching them that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Just to eliminate the broken system that prefaced it. The guys who are hurt by picks are hurt by their agents who wanted multi year deals to get commission on. Not the pick attached. The players still dangling were not probably worth the 15 million. And the market is teaching them that.

It is also a device to lower player salaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was collectively bargained but the intent is to lower demand for some free agents.

The players agreed since it effects much fewer players then the prior model.

That, I can agree with. But overall supports increase free agent contracts and higher overall AAV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because something is collectively bargained doesn't mean it is a 100% win for an involved party. It is bargained, after all. I'm sure the owners wanted stronger restrictions, and the players none.

I do understand this, but if it appears to be a unilateral MLB move to suppress salaries, that is disingenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...