Eliminate The Draft Pick Compensation Rule For Type A & B Free Agents

[GnatsFan]

If this has been discussed before my apologies. I never venture into this sub-forum.

I was reading an article written by Ken Rosenthal :002_smad: entitled, Cruz's Plight Shows Free-agency Flaw.

Interesting part of the article that jumped out at me: The larger question — and more difficult issue — is whether draft-pick compensation should be eliminated entirely. :eektf:

---------------------------------------------

The article is essentially talking about how Juan Cruz is seemingly being avoided like the plague by teams because he is a type A Free Agent and teams don't want to lose their draft pick. Thus, technically, Juan Cruz is being punished because of all things... he was too good.

Here is some excerpts:

Baseball players and owners should reopen the collective-bargaining agreement and create "The Juan Cruz Rule."

Informal discussions already have taken place between the two sides about the impact of draft-pick compensation on this year's free-agent market, major-league sources say.

So, even for high-revenue clubs, the value of draft picks is soaring [due to economy], making teams increasingly reluctant to forfeit high picks for declining players such as catcher Jason Varitek and secondary relievers such as Cruz.

The larger question — and more difficult issue — is whether draft-pick compensation should be eliminated entirely.

MLB favors such an approach, under one condition.

In exchange for granting players free agency without constraints, the owners would want predetermined salaries for draft picks — in effect, a salary cap for players signing their first pro contracts.

Full Article: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9119922/Cruz%27s-plight-shows-free-agency-flaw?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=49

Hmm...:scratchchinhmm:

Anyone for abolishing the draft pick compensation system or is Juan Cruz just one of those anomaly cases? (Is Hudson a Type A? Varitek is and he seems to be unable to get a job because he is a Type A)

Or how about if you think the draft pick compensation rule is needed, but flawed how would you fix it? What would you propose?

Rosenthal suggests one way might be adjusting the Elias ranking formulas (I have no idea how they are calculated to know if they are flawed)

Personally, I think the current system is screwed in one way. Teams are getting 2nd and 3rd round picks for their Type A's instead of 1st round picks because the Yankees signed multiple Free Agents. If Juan Cruz for instance signed with the Yankees right now then the D'Backs would only get a 4th round pick for a Type A, which might encourage the Yankees to sign Cruz while a team that would have to surrender a 1st rounder wouldn't (Rich get richer). This just sounds wrong. Maybe in this case we could simply take away the Yankee's 4th round pick and give the D'Backs two supplemental picks inbetween the 1st and 2nd rounds?

E.g.

1) Yanks sign Teixiera and instead of giving the #16 overall 1st round pick to the Angels we just discard the #16 pick and move all teams down and give the Angels two supplemental picks.

2) Yanks sign Sabathia, their 2nd round pick is discarded, all teams move down one slot, and Brewers get two supplemental picks.

3) Yanks sign Burnett, their 3rd round pick is discarded, all teams move down one slot, and Jays get two supplemental picks.

So Yanks still get penalized the same, but the teams losing the Type A's all get treated fairly. My rule wouldn't entice teams to sign Type A's so the Juan Cruz dilemma wouldn't be corrected, but I'd think if we are going to keep the current system things need to be fixed. :scratchchinhmm:

[DrungoHazewood]

Like most things in baseball that have a veneer of more parity painted on them, a significant part of their reason to exist was to keep teams from spending money and signing free agents. The owners rightly thought that if you penalized teams for signing players you'd limit the number of players who'd sign, or at least you'd get them to sign at a big discount. From the owners perspective this was all about salary restraint.

Remember, this rule was enacted in the early 80s in an era where most owners thought that they could eliminate free agency altogether, and go back to the reserve clause days, if they just stuck together and kept chipping away at those darn players.

[Mad Mark]

Like most things in baseball that have a veneer of more parity painted on them, a significant part of their reason to exist was to keep teams from spending money and signing free agents. The owners rightly thought that if you penalized teams for signing players you'd limit the number of players who'd sign, or at least you'd get them to sign at a big discount. From the owners perspective this was all about salary restraint.

Remember, this rule was enacted in the early 80s in an era where most owners thought that they could eliminate free agency altogether, and go back to the reserve clause days, if they just stuck together and kept chipping away at those darn players.

Other than the Yankee$, isn't just about everything the owners do about salary restraint? :laughlol:

Also, when this rule was written I can't imagine anybody thought a team would burn in excess of $400MM on free agents in a single offseason, not even George III! (He wasn't serving one of his "lifetime" bans from the sport when this rule was written, was he? :scratchchinhmm:)

[RShack]

Other than the Yankee$, isn't just about everything the owners do about salary restraint? :laughlol:

Well, you'd think so.

Problem is that, while everything they do may be motivated by a desire to limit costs, the dummies do things that accomplish just the opposite.

Chief examples include their wonderful *insistence* on the combination of arbitration and limiting FA to only those players who were good enough to stick a long time.

It would be hard to design a system that was better at ramping up salaries than what the owners dug in their heels about and forced the players to swallow.

[Mad Mark]

Well, you'd think so.

Problem is that, while everything they do may be motivated by a desire to limit costs, the dummies do things that accomplish just the opposite.

Chief examples include their wonderful *insistence* on the combination of arbitration and limiting FA to only those players who were good enough to stick a long time.

It would be hard to design a system that was better at ramping up salaries than what the owners dug in their heels about and forced the players to swallow.

I've called the MLB owners many things, but I doubt "clever" was ever one of them! :rofl:

You do have to give Charlie Finley credit, though. He apparently saw how the whole arb/FA system was going to play out.

[mweb]

Something should and will be done about it. It is quite unfair to a guy like Cruz, who should be a very coveted reliever, but instead is struggling to find work.

[Runs2the1Show]

Despite the fact that it has it's flaws, the system is a neccessary component of baseball.

Small market teams would never have a chance to be good if they were constantly losing their players to the big boys, and had no way to replenish their farm system. The picks give the team some leverage in negotiations, as if they are unable to re-sign a player or complete an extension, at least they have the satisfaction of knowing they will get two picks as compensation.

I think the system works, there is no need to change it. Yea, it sucks for Cruz, but in most cases, it proves to be neccessary. It's what makes the Brewers of the world, who have no chance of matching a 250 million dollar contract thrown at C.C , still able to compete year in and year out.

[GnatsFan]

Per an article linked on MLBTradeRumors regarding Cruz's likely destination:

The second option is Gotham's other team, the Yankees, who would only have to give up a 4th rounder after signing C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira. In a typical offsesason, teams would max out at being allowed to sign three Type A free agents, but due to the wealth of Type A's that hit the market this year, there is no limit on any team. A fourth rounder is the most reasonable price that any team in the majors could give up -- and th reality is that the value in that signing is utterly absurd. Cruz would sit in the pen with Mariano Rivera, Damaso Marte, Edwar Ramirez, Phil Coke and Brian Bruney. Couple that with a stacked rotation and a Cruz signing may just put the Yankees over the top.

Either way, Juan Cruz doesn't have many options. Pinstripes are looking like his best bet.

The Yankees may very well get Cruz on a multi-year big-time discount because they signed the most Type A Free Agents and the Type A status is driving away the competition for his services.

Gotta love it. Oh, how pissed will the D'Backs be with only 4th round compensation? Imagine if that happened to us if we lost B'Rob to Free Agency. Maybe the D'Backs should just try and resign Cruz? :scratchchinhmm:

[TGO]

Gotta love it. Oh, how pissed will the D'Backs be with only 4th round compensation? Imagine if that happened to us if we lost B'Rob to Free Agency. Maybe the D'Backs should just try and resign Cruz? :scratchchinhmm:

They probably would love to at this point, but they don't really have any money to spend.

[TGO]

Despite the fact that it has it's flaws, the system is a neccessary component of baseball.

Small market teams would never have a chance to be good if they were constantly losing their players to the big boys, and had no way to replenish their farm system. The picks give the team some leverage in negotiations, as if they are unable to re-sign a player or complete an extension, at least they have the satisfaction of knowing they will get two picks as compensation.

I think the system works, there is no need to change it. Yea, it sucks for Cruz, but in most cases, it proves to be neccessary. It's what makes the Brewers of the world, who have no chance of matching a 250 million dollar contract thrown at C.C , still able to compete year in and year out.

I think your fear is overblown. Small market teams would either be more willing to trade their star players or they would be more willing to take the risk of extending their players earlier, when they are cheaper.

You're imagining a new system without a new set of reactions to that system. Teams that could not afford to compete in the FA market would change the way they do business in one way or another if they did not get picks.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think your fear is overblown. Small market teams would either be more willing to trade their star players or they would be more willing to take the risk of extending their players earlier, when they are cheaper.

You're imagining a new system without a new set of reactions to that system. Teams that could not afford to compete in the FA market would change the way they do business in one way or another if they did not get picks.

Not only that, but the current system is exploited by big market teams to the point where they often have more picks than the small market teams. The rich teams have a lot of free agent churn - they sign guys, then let them go and collect the picks. The small market teams are usually trying to trade their soon-to-be-expensive players and don't get any picks. And the bad teams have fewer Type A and B players anyway, so they have fewer opportunities to lose them and get compensatory picks.

A few years ago the Red Sox had something ridiculous like six or seven picks before the 2nd round, while most of the small market teams had their standard allotment of one.

[eb45]

Another solution -- and I haven't thought this through much at all -- would be to impose draft pick compensation based on player salaries. For example, if a player signs with a new team at a contract of, say 10M+ per, then the team gives up a first-round pick. 5M+, second round. Numbers can be changed easily, maybe a percentage system (top 5% of all players = first-round pick, 5-10%, second-round, etc.) would work better. And a cap on the number of Type A FAs a team could sign in one offseason as well.

There's probably a glaring hole in this somewhere, and if somebody can see it, please point it out to me.

[Mad Mark]

Not only that, but the current system is exploited by big market teams to the point where they often have more picks than the small market teams. The rich teams have a lot of free agent churn - they sign guys, then let them go and collect the picks. The small market teams are usually trying to trade their soon-to-be-expensive players and don't get any picks. And the bad teams have fewer Type A and B players anyway, so they have fewer opportunities to lose them and get compensatory picks.

A few years ago the Red Sox had something ridiculous like six or seven picks before the 2nd round, while most of the small market teams had their standard allotment of one.

Maybe draft picks need to figured into the luxury tax somehow.

[wickedwitch]

Cruz could have accepted arbitration instead of becoming a FA. It was his choice.

[GnatsFan]

Cruz could have accepted arbitration instead of becoming a FA. It was his choice.

True, but should he have to go year-by-year contractually while lesser players get job security via multi-year deals? :scratchchinhmm: