Free Agent Compensation System Is Unfair To The Pirates
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 27, 2011 4:29 AM EST
Email
Print
Over at OnlyBucs, WTM notes this post at MLB Trade Rumors, which lists the players in Baseball America's current Top 100 Prospects list who were drafted as compensatory picks for free agents. It's an impressive list, including the Royals' Mike Montgomery, the Blue Jays' Kyle Drabek, and Angels mega-prospect Mike Trout.
There are a number of unfair things about this system. WTM is of the opinion that teams are compensated for the departures of free agents primarily as a way of keeping salaries down, rather than as rewards for teams who develop talent. (We saw this a couple years ago, when guys like Juan Cruz and Orlando Hudson had a hard time signing as free agents because doing so would cause the teams who signed them to forfeit draft picks.)
Also, teams like the Pirates who are out of playoff races typically trade good impending free agents anyway, and thus don't receive draft pick compensation for them. We saw this with Jason Bay, as the Pirates preferred to take a package of talent from the Dodgers and Red Sox rather than holding onto Bay for a year and collecting picks. (That decision didn't work out so well, but trading him was certainly defensible at the time.) In 2006, the Pirates elected to ship Roberto Hernandez (and Oliver Perez) to the Mets for Xavier Nady, and Hernandez ended up being named a Type A free agent, which meant the Mets were awarded the 42nd and 77th overall picks in the 2007 draft.
Of course, the Pirates themselves had picked up Hernandez as a free agent before the 2006 season, so maybe they didn't really deserve those picks anyway. Ideally, as Tim Williams points out in the OnlyBucs thread, teams should be compensated for free agent departures when the free agents are players they developed themselves but can no longer afford. The Rays' loss of Carl Crawford is a good example.
But looking back at the list on MLB Trade Rumors, many, many, compensatory picks are awarded for players who were signed as free agents in the first place, or for players who were acquired in trades to help contenders down the stretch. For example, the Angels got the pick they used to select Trout when they lost Mark Teixeira to the Yankees, but Teixeira was only with them for 54 games. The Royals got the pick they used to select Montgomery when they lost David Riske, who had signed with them as a free agent the year before. The Rangers got the pick they used to select Tanner Scheppers when they lost Milton Bradley, who likewise was a free agent who had only been with them for a year.
Why should teams be compensated in situations like these? When they are, the system awards teams who have the money to sign good free agents (or free agents who are relievers, as Elias' ridiculous method of determining free agent types considers good relievers to be just as worthy of draft pick compensation as, say, star first basemen or starting pitchers). It also awards teams who accumulate veteran talent for stretch runs. In other words, teams like the Yankees and Red Sox are consistently awarded more draft picks, while lowly teams like the Pirates - the Royals' compensation for David Riske aside - rarely are.
In fact, I can't find a single example of the Pirates getting an extra pick as a result of this system. I couldn't remember any, and I went back through the last decade of drafts to be sure. (2009 pick Victor Black was a supplemental first-round pick, but that was for failing to sign Scheppers as a draft pick in 2008, not for the loss of a free agent.)
Whenever the Bucs have a halfway decent impending free agent, they trade him. They must usually believe that they can get better value on the trade market than they would later, in the draft, and for the most part, I think they're right, since they usually get players who have climbed at least a few rungs of the minor-league ladder. But in the meantime, teams like the Red Sox, who this year will have four picks before the Pirates pick for the second time, keep racking up draft picks. It's true that this system occasionally rewards a team like the Rays for developing their own talent and sticking with it, but at this point, it seems like the Pirates shouldn't have such a disadvantage in the draft compared to a team that has been successful for the past few years. And anyway, it's way out of proportion - the Rays will have ten draft picks this year before the Pirates get to pick for the second time, and some of those picks compensate the Rays for the losses of nearly-irrelevant players like Brad Hawpe and Randy Choate.
There are certainly cases where the Pirates should have been gaming the system a bit. For example, I know Nady turned out to be a nifty acquisition for the Bucs, in that he later got them Jose Tabata, but at the time, the Pirates really should have been thinking about Hernandez's potential Type A free agent status. The Pirates under Littlefield could not have cared less about the draft, and therefore it's no surprise that he never, ever got a compensation pick for anyone. But Neal Huntington does care about the draft, and he has never gotten a pick for a free agent either.
It's a silly system, and hopefully the next Collective Bargaining Agreement will do away with or change it. One potential fix would be to have teams be awarded with picks only when the departing free agents signed with them as amateurs. Or, even better, when a player becomes a free agent for the first time (that is, when he has six years of MLB service) and is designated Type A or Type B, the team that player spent the most time with, rather than the team who had him last, would get picks. That way, the Pirates could trade a player like Bay without the Red Sox vulturing picks from them.
142 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Let's keep tinkering around the edges
We can call it. . .continuous quality improvement!
Lino Donoso
As Tim pointed out elsewhere, it’s a shame Coonelly’s comments about draft compensation went unnoticed while everybody was making a bogus issue out of his payroll comments.
Kevin: Is the compensation system broken when a team like the Tampa Bay Rays gets 11 picks in the first 75 selections of the 2011 draft, while the Pirates get 1?
Frank: Yes. We need to reduce the compensatory selections so that the second selection of the Club drafting first in the country is not 58 or 60 instead of 31. Now, Tampa received those selections because it lost good players in free agency but it is difficult for the draft to serve its purpose when there are so many compensatory selections before the second round.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I’ve brought it up in several places that the Pirates have chosen not to go that route and acquire the supplemental draft choices…and that they have been very quiet about not wanting to see the system change. Nor have they offered a solution to the problem.
The Pirates have forgotten…If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
Right. And yet when we bloggers talked to NH and FC a few weeks ago, they both seemed resigned to the idea of a hard slotting system, despite the fact that they’re one of three or four teams currently doing the best job of taking advantage of the fact that there isn’t a hard slotting system. Perhaps there are political considerations here that aren’t obvious to us.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 27, 2011 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
Not that great a puzzle
Bud Selig doesn’t appreciate teams talking in public about bargaining issues. Anybody who hasn’t figured that out hasn’t been paying attention. And we don’t know what’s being said behind the scenes. I often wondered if baseball fans don’t have issues with something like the concept of object permanence — If I don’t see it, it can’t be happening. (Kinda like the tinfoil hat theory that NH forced the coaches on Hurdle. I had somebody out at Pirate City a couple days ago tell me that Bannister was HURDLE’S choice as bench coach.)
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Yeah, except that when asked about the free agent compensation system, Coonelly at least agreed that the system was broken. When asked about the hard slotting idea, Coonelly and Huntington both more or less said they didn’t care.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 27, 2011 2:45 PM EST up reply actions
Would the Bucs rather have a draft pick for Dotel
Instead of having McDonald and Lambo? The money saved by trading away players like Bay, Wilson, McClouth, Sanchez goes along way in paying for draft picks like Tallion, Sanchez, Alvarez, Allie. I agree with the post but there are two sides to every coin and the bottom line is you have to draft smart and go hard after international players. There are countless players taken low in the draft who turn out pretty good, like Pujols.
Back in 2008, I thought that maybe the Pirates should hold on to Bay and let him leave as a free agent in order to get compensation picks. I never had that thought about Nady, McLouth, Wilson, Sanchez or LaRoche because I thought none of those guys would even be Type B. Maybe if McLouth kept up his hitting, he might have turned out to be a Type B. But clearly that probably won’t happen now.
by IAPiratesFan on Feb 27, 2011 8:55 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, it’s hard to get compensation when your players suck. But that’s one problem with the system. The better teams will tend to get compensation because they have better players. It’s one of the factors that lets teams like Boston and the Yankees often churn FAs, getting draft picks as they leave and then just replacing them with new FAs.
It’d make more sense if one element in determining compensation was the player’s value to his team, like including his WAR as a % of team WAR as one factor in the rankings.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Or how about age?
Aren’t players in their prime more valuable to other teams than players in their late 30’s?
Ivan Rodriguez got the Texas Rangers a compensation pick last year. They had him for a grand total of 28 games at the age of 37 in 2009. I get that he was once a great player, but is he really worth a compensation pick at that age? Gregg Zaun was 39 in 2009 and he got the Rays a compensation pick. Billy Wagner got the Red Sox two picks. At 38. And he retired after last season.
I mean, compare that to the Pirates losing Barry Bonds or the Indians losing Manny Ramirez or the Mariners losing Alex Rodriquez. I just think there’s a difference between losing a star player in his prime and losing guys in their mid to late 30’s. I mean, ten years from now, I doubt you’ll hear any Red Sox fans saying that they wish they had Wagner longer. But can you imagine how different the Pirates, Indians or Mariners would be if they could have held on to those guys?
by IAPiratesFan on Feb 27, 2011 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It may be hard to get compensation when your players suck…but it’s impossible to get compensation when you give them away. Sanchez and LaRoche are two perfect examples.
LaRoche was a Type B and the Braves must not have offered him arbitration because they didn’t get a comp pick for him.
There’s no way Sanchez would have been even a Type B. His OPS+ the two years before he would have been a FA was 96 and 78. He was one of the worst everyday players in MLB in 2008.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Don't think
He rejected it this past offseason.
He wasn’t offered it, that’s why he didn’t accept.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 27, 2011 6:23 PM EST up reply actions
Mark
MLB.com says you are wrong.
I thought they had offered me. But your post had me doubting myself.
different offseasons
He wasn’t offered it by Atlanta after ’09, was offered it by Arizona after ’10.
He probably would’ve rejected it after ’09, since he was badly misjudging the market — rejected a two-year deal from SF for $17.5m (total) and eventually wound up signing a one-year deal for $6m.
But holding on to him and offering him arb in the hopes that he’d decline would’ve been a bad move in ‘09, because there’d have been no way to know he’d reject it.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 27, 2011 8:29 PM EST up reply actions
Hence ...
the reason I used this phrase:
He rejected it this past offseason.
OK, thanks. I didn’t realize that. Anyway, I do think that if the Pirates would have offered LaRoche arbitration after 2009 that he probably would have rejected it.
I’m not sure how they determine Type B status, but if you remember correctly, LaRoche pretty much was terrible that year up until he was traded. All of his value that year was gained in the two months he wasn’t a Pirate. So, there could have been a chance that he wouldn’t have rebounded at all and not gained Type B status.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 27, 2011 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
Hard to say if LaRoche would have put up those numbers in Pittsburgh.
But I do agree he would have rejected arbitration.
I think it’s clear over the past few years that most guys pass on arbitration for the chance at free agency.
Every once a while, a team gets burned.
But I think it’s usually worth the risk.
Wouldn’t say Sanchez was a give away at all.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Feb 27, 2011 2:24 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
its just another example where a pirates fan thinks too highly of the old crew...
sanchez, wilson and laroche were fine guys and decent players, but they are pieces you ADD to a puzzle, not build around…
the current core is something you add a sanchez, wilson, laroche type to the mix.
I thought about this; another good reason to stock up on relievers. If we can’t trade ’em, we might get picks for ’em.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Feb 27, 2011 9:57 AM EST via mobile reply actions
quick thoughts
I imagine this is one "inefficiency " out there, you can trade some veterans and keep them in the roster, like Dotel for the Rookies, or guys like Brad Hawpe and Chad Qualls for the Rays. You have to eat their salaries, but that doesn’t hurt you much. It is unfair, but to wait the compensation system change is a long way to go. I think the Blue Jays acquired Miguel Olivo in the offseason is a good example.
On the other hand, if we can’t find a good buyer, why not just keep someone for the left season? Doumit has a good chance to be a Type A free agent, lets see what will FO do.
Doumit, really?
I’m not an expert on that FA – classification, so I won’t say that you’re wrong, because I really don’t know. However, I would assume Doumit would need a monster season that would essentially off-set all of his other shitty seasons to be considered a Type A.
No?
it is my guess, last year i saw somewhere the projection had him for a Type B and not so far to be a Type A, but who really knows the Elias ranking?
No kidding.
Barry Bonds was a Type B. They had to be smoking crack when they made that decision.
by IAPiratesFan on Feb 27, 2011 12:15 PM EST up reply actions
Yet Hernandez was a type A
Not exactly a great system.
But DL was an idiot. You don’t trade type A guys unless the return is worth it.
I can’t imagine that he was key to getting Nady.
If I recall correctly, the Mets were in a tough spot because Duaner Sanchez had gone down a couple days before, so yeah, the Mets wanted Hernandez.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 27, 2011 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly
People are rewriting history here. The deal was Hernandez for Nady. Ollie was in the minor leagues at the time and was viewed as a toss-in. Ollie’s inclusion has always been the controversial part of the deal, but Hernandez was who the Mets were actually trading for.
BTW, there’s a game going on right now! Bucs up 5-2.
Not really
Hernandez was a 41-year-old set-up guy.
Ollie was an elite pitcher two years prior.
The Mets wanted an RP.
But it was not Hernandez for Nady. And he was not a minor throw-in.
Wanted, yes
Had to have, I’m skeptical that the Mets would have only taken him.
The Hawpe situation is utterly ridiculous
The Rockies cut him on August 19. The Rays signed him to a minor-league contract on August 27 and made him a Sept. 1 callup. He got 39 ABs with them (producing a .637 OPS). I doubt that they paid him much at all, and I’d bet that they had a handshake deal with him to reject arbitration — because it’d have been pretty disastrous if he’d taken it. (Which is another reason the Pirates can’t engage in this ridiculous gamesmanship unless they have deals like that in place; if one of these players accepts arbitration they’re screwed.)
Why should the Rays get a pick for this? How has MLB managed to allow this system to eliminate the second round of the draft?
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 27, 2011 11:27 AM EST reply actions
what I would do
I think the MLB should keep a compensation system but instead of just type A and type B players expand it all the way to type F or type G. This is just an example but I would have maybe 6-8 type As (they would net their teams 1st round picks from the team that signs them), 6-8 type Bs (they would net 2nd round draft picks from the team that signs them), 6-8 type Cs (net 3rd round draft picks), type Ds (4th round) etc…..
That way teams will still be compensated but in a more accurate way with respect to the value of the player that leaves. That way some random relief pitchers would only net a team a 5th or 6th rounder etc.
Just my 2 cents
my plan
Just get rid of FA compensation picks altogether. I can’t really think of any reason why they should exist.
by epoc on Feb 27, 2011 12:09 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
Another minor shortage is the compensation system will let teams like the Bucs, who doesn’t have such many draft picks in the early rounds, to withdraw from signing the big-name FAs. Derrek Lee is Type A, for instance, if NH did sign him that would let the second draft pick around 100th. As you can see the Tigers have their first pick at 76th. So they have to estimate if the distance between Lee and Overbay is worthy to do that. And this will make the bad teams have less motivation on the FA market, and that is not that the system intends to do.
good point
I think that might have been the case with Pavano too. We liked him as a pitcher but not enough to throw $16 Million at him and lose our 2nd round pick, which could potentially be someone with the talent level of Allie (although probably not with the way the compensation system screwed us this year).
I also think this point supports the idea of staying put in Free Agency until we have a competitive team. Once we do we can be like the Red Sox and sign bigger free agents lose a pick or two and end up gaining picks from guys we lost (if the system doesnt change).
by Cainyoudigit on Feb 27, 2011 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
If I understand all of this correctly, the Pirates also have a situation where their second pick,
- overall?, will probably expect top of the second round money when in reality he may very well be a projected third round or later talent to match the place he’s taken. There may not be another Stetson Allie for the Bucs to get this time. It might be another Victor Black.
#61
- is to the Padres for Corriea, and the last 2 before second round are for Brad Hawpe and Chad Qualls.
I don’t suppose we can trade Correia for the comp pick . . . .
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
WTM
No such luck, I’m afraid. Maybe MLB would allow a Correia/Overbay package for the pick.
If you type a # sign at the beginning of a line, the SBN system converts it to a numbered list
whether you like it or not.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 27, 2011 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
Come to think of it,
we shouldn’t be surprised that a system that was ostensibly put into place to help teams that lose FAs get some compensation actually rewards the “haves” more often than the “have nots.”
Isn’t that baseball’s motto more or less?
"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-Roberto
by blackjackfishtaco on Feb 27, 2011 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
The Bay supplemental pcks
It’s hard to say what the Pirates would have done with those.
Would they have drafted Ranaudo (who wanted a $2.5 million bonus) and not drafted Stetson Allie later for budgetary reasons? Would they have just taken slot signings like Victor Black? I don’t know.
Both those seem much more likely than that we’d have Taillon, Ranaudo, and Allie, from here.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 27, 2011 12:17 PM EST via mobile reply actions
There are actually so many things wrong with the compensation system
that it’s hard to articulate it in a clear way. I mean what do you pick to go after? Do you start by going after the causes or the ridiculous effects.
The flawed system used to classify free agents, where 7th inning relievers who likely command 2-3M salaries are sometimes Type A while league-average everyday starters are usually Type B?
The fact that teams can’t sign certain free agents without giving up compensation picks?
The fact that certain free agents are punished and lose significant leverage because of the above scenario – usually solid, veteran players either can’t get a deal or have to lower their asking price significantly? (the PA can’t like this one at all)
The fact that the team with the worst record doesn’t get their second pick until around pick 60?
Really the only group that benefits from the compensation system are the owners. Free agents get screwed and have to settle for less money. Draft picks taken from 31-60 still make the same money they’d have made if that were the 2nd round, and if they make more, it’s negligible. If the MLBPA doesn’t go after this shitty system for the next CBA, they are complete failures.
The last supplemental picks the Pirates had due to loss of a free agent...
1993 draft
Drabek (Jermaine Allensworth, supplemental 1st round, and Kevin Pickford, 2nd round)
Bonds (Andy Rice, supplemental 1st round)
Their 1st round pick that year, Charles Peterson.
So, out of 4 picks in the 1st 2 rounds that season, 1 made the Pirates. In fact…the entire draft produced 2 Pirates…Allensworth (who played 238 games with the Pirates) and 37th round Peters Township native, Chris Peters, who pitched in 123 games with the Pirates.
I remember Charles Peterson as being a "toolsy" HS OF that only made it to AA, I think.
I thought Jermaine Allensworth had a chance coming out of college to help the team in CF for a number of years. It didn’t work out that well, though.
OTOH....
The Rays never had a compensation pick until 2010. They built a good team, despite of this screwed up system and would early on this decade they lost picks because of dumb free agent signings.
And besides that, I wonder how many teams would trade all their later compensation pick to take a Stephen Strasburg, Bryce Harper, Jameson Taillon or Anthony Rendon? I just looked through the 1982-2006 Supplemental round draft picks and there’s not a whole lot there. David Wright, Johnny Damon and Travis Fryman are the biggest names.
IAPiratesFan best post of the day
My exact point. Forget about whining about the system and learn how to draft and evaluate talent better.
Yep...
they may have the draft better part down pretty good…but evaluating major league talent…not so much.
Very true.
Proud fan of Pittsburgh's professional sports teams and the Pirates too.
by Black&GoldTrain on Feb 27, 2011 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
sorry, but drafting IS evaluating major league talent
they arent drafting guys to say in altoona for 5 years
What?
How dare you question Dave Littlefield’s draft strategy!
by IAPiratesFan on Feb 27, 2011 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
The Pirates SEEM to be decent at projecting amateur talent, although we won’t know for sure until they actually PLAY in the majors. Assessing AAA and major league talent…there have been a bunch of strikeouts and very few hits.
the goal for our FO was, and is, to build this team through the draft
yes they took fliers on young, talented former top prospects, and the vast majority failed to stick. this does not mean they are not good at projecting major league talent. they had to fill the MLB roster with some players so why not give a bunch of former top talents another shot at the bigs?
by white angus on Feb 27, 2011 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
I don't like comp, but not because I think it's "unfair to the teams"
But because it’s unfair to some players, usually relievers and older former stars. If say, my closer Jonathan Papelbon has a down year this year (again) but still retains Type A status, the Sox may be stuck with him or he’ll never get signed.
As for the teams, it’s perfectly fair. Tampa chose to hold onto their players and received a boatload of picks for them. You, chose to trade them, you receive a boatload of prospects for them. It’s not like you aren’t being compensated for them. The Angels also gave up a lot to get Tex, they got the pick to replace lost prospects.
I could argue that the current draft system is unfair to the Pirates, I mean, the Sox haven’t chosen in the top 15 in a decade, the Pirates haven’t had a worse selection during that time, how is that fair!?
Now that of course is tongue in cheek but is the argument much different? Instead of getting compensation picks your team has decided to select from prospects already in baseball. Is there really a difference? In the end, the net result is exactly the same, you got your compensation, one you agreed upon in trade, and they get their re-compensation if the FA walks away after 50 days.
It works all ways, you could theoretically trade for a Type A and then get your own compensatory picks! Listen, the MLB isn’t here to make things work for the Pirates, they are here to make things work for all the teams. To a large extent, pick compensation works, there are always a couple cases where it doesn’t (like I said, relievers and older players usually get the shaft), but most of the time it’s an efficient way to disperse draft picks from higher to lower teams. That your management choses a different path isn’t particularly a valid argument.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Yes, pick compensation does work for the Sox. They get compensated for letting those teams in the dregs of the league do that long, arduous work of weeding through hundreds of amateur players and developing a good one into a quality player who doesn’t want to play for their crappy team.
On the one hand, you say the Pirates (e.g.) already got their compensation with the trade return. On the other hand though, the Sox (e.g.) also already got their compensation – they got a proven player, perhaps in the prime of his career, ready to help the MLB team now. That’s what a trade is, swapping value for value. So why do the Sox need to be “re-compensated” when the guy is a free agent?
Yes, the Pirates could “theoretically” trade for a Type A player, let him walk and receive compensations. However, to get that player, we would either have to trade a (some) similar big-league player(s) or a (some) valuable prospect(s) to get him. So either you trade away players that could likely give you compensation anyways (relatively pointless), or you trade away prospects which undercuts the very method which is the only (to my knowledge) plausible way of building a team in a small market.
You are very right in saying that MLB isn’t here to make things work for the Pirates, but instead what they are here for is to make giant sackfuls of money. They couldn’t care less how some of the individual teams do.
Jason
The Hanging Curve
by poorboywilly on Feb 27, 2011 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
In the end it has to be all even right? That’s what you’re saying?
Say the Pirates had opted to keep Bay. At the end of his deal he would have walked and you would have gotten draft picks. The Red Sox would have kept their prospects.
So net result:
You: Draft picks
Us: Kept prospects
He got traded, you lost Bay and gained prospects. We traded prospects and got Bay, who we then lost at free agency and got draft picks for.
Net Result:
You: Prospects
Us: Draft picks
In the end, it was an even swap.
In your scenario we get Bay but no prospects in the end.
You: Prospects
Us: Nothing
That is not an even swap at the end result.
And it’s not like you got nothing for Bay. Andy LaRoche was a top prospect in baseball, Bryan Morris is considered one of your top 10 prospects, Brandon Moss was a top 100 talent, so was Craig Hansen. Nothing is 100% in baseball, it was a risk and most of it didn’t work out, Morris still can though. In the end you’d have gotten 2 draft picks, they have the same failure rate any of these guys did.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Why do you leave Bay completely out of the results above?
You: Prospects
Us: Nothing
That is not an even swap at the end result.
No, it wouldn’t be, but the Red Sox also got a year and a half of Bay.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 27, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
It’s the net result in the end.
If you had kept him YOU ALSO would have had a year and a half of Bay, in the end it’s the same.
If you kept:
You: 1.5 Years of Bay + Draft Picks
Us: Kept Prospects
If you traded:
You: Prospects
Us: 1.5 Years of Bay + Draft Picks
If you kept and there was no comp system:
You: 1.5 Years of Bay
Us: Kept Prospects
If you traded with no comp system:
You: Prospects
Us: 1.5 Years of Bay.
What’s the difference in the end?
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
It seems that some are suggesting that it would be fair that only you would receive draft picks for Bay if you kept him, but if he went to the Sox, we shouldn’t have gotten any when he left. Where as I’m pointing out that that would make the trade unbalanced, or would have to result in far quality or quantity of prospects.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Uhh…and if we kept Bay, you would have your prospects. If, for all intents and purposes, the prospects we acquire equal Bay, why should Boston be rewarded for having Bay when his contract ended?
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Feb 27, 2011 4:28 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Because you too would have been rewarded for having Bay when his contract ended if you kept him. It’s not a double reward. People are suggesting that if you kept him you should be rewarded when he leaves, but if you trade him the team that receives him, who gave up equal value for him should not?
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
The point is
The Sox are not being re-compensated in the end with anything unfair. It’s the came compensation you would have received on your end if you had kept him.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Hence
Net result either way is one team having prospects and the other team having Bay + draft picks.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
True. However, it doesn’t negate the fact that compensation picks end up helping teams that need the compensation less than teams that end up spending loads of money for free agents in the first place.
Really, if I fix anything with the supplemental picks, it would definitely be to stop giving teams who give out one year contracts to relievers two extra picks in the draft if said reliever ends up pitching alright.
It was a one year deal — I’m damn sure the team didn’t plan on using said player for more than that one year. Why should they be rewarded even further for that player leaving? Compensation picks should only exist for the truly elite — you know, something that can actually hurt a team for ages.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
I’m fairly sure that Type A/Type B status is calculated over several years, to sign a player on a one year deal who ended up being Type A, means it was VERY likely he was already Type A to begin with, and they lost a draft pick to sign him in the first place.
I would say the compensation system is working fine for a lot of teams. Look at the Rays, they developed talent, couldn’t keep said talent and now own about 15% of the top 75 picks in the draft.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
wrong
“Look at the Rays, they developed talent, couldn’t keep said talent and now own about 15% of the top 75 picks in the draft.”
The Rays have sandwich round picks for Carl Crawford, Grant Balfour, Rafael Soriano, Joaquin Benoit, Randy Choate, Brad Hawpe, and Chad Qualls.
Crawford, they developed. Balfour made his MLB debut in 2001 and was traded to the Rays in 2007, but I’ll grant you that he was a longtime part of their team and they may have developed his value. Soriano was traded to the Rays before the ’10 season after surprising the Braves by taking arbitration. Benoit was signed by the Rays to a minor league contract before the ’10 season. Choate was signed to a minor league contract before the ’09 season after making his MLB debut in ’00. Hawpe, as I mentioned above, is an utter fucking joke, having been signed in August ’10 after the Rockies cut him and got 38 ABs with the Rays. Qualls was traded to the Rays on July 31, 2010.
So out of seven players, there’s one who actually came up through the Rays system, two more who were with them for longer than a year, and two who were with them for less than two months. i don’t think they gave up a draft pick for a single one of them. This is not the Rays developing talent and losing it; you are simply wrong on the facts here.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 27, 2011 9:30 PM EST up reply actions
*less than three months
or maybe three and a half.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 27, 2011 9:31 PM EST up reply actions
THEN DO WHAT THEY DID!
The system isn’t slanted against you, you too could sign players and get draft picks. You too could develop players and get draft picks. It doesn’t matter how they got them, the fact is that they got them and then they left and they reaped the benefits. That other teams do this and you don’t doesn’t mean the system is broken.
This year their payroll is right back where it was two years ago, about the same as yours and guess what? They’re competing in one of the toughest divisions in baseball and are expected to compete for most of the next decade. How did they get there? Working the system, drafting well and developing talent well.
You could do that too. Maybe your new management is actually doing it, they seem a little better but that your previous management didn’t work the system is no reason to complain about the system.
It looks real weak in my opinion. Just because you haven’t acquired any compensation picks doesn’t mean you didn’t have opportunities to, they just chose to trade at midseason instead of holding on.
You either eliminate compensation picks completely or keep them completely as is. That the Sox got picks for Bay doesn’t matter, you were compensated for those picks as well. If the picks didn’t come along, you wouldn’t have gotten 4 top 100 prospects. It was part of the compensation recieved.
This whole thread screams of “it’s not fair” childlike whining.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
“This whole thread screams of ‘it’s not fair’ childlike whining.”
As does your continued contribution to the thread: gainsaying “Oh, yes it is! It is too!”
You have your opinion, others have theirs. Neither is going to convince the other to change.
So, why continue?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 27, 2011 10:54 PM EST up reply actions
Because I’m not operating outside the world of logic the way most in this thread are.
The system is logical and it works. The argument “the system doesn’t work because we haven’t gotten a compensation draft pick in a long time” is illogical, just read it.
You haven’t received a compensation draft pick because you haven’t let any potential Type A/B players reach free agency. You’ve had them, and then you traded them away in stead, for prospects rather than draft picks.
The ways in which the system doesn’t work is rather limited. It doesn’t work especially well considering draft order in the second round, teams that didn’t sign or give up rated free agents still have to wait for the others to pick their sandwich picks, limiting the talent that should be available in the second round. Another is that some players, generally older players or relievers, get screwed out of jobs when the risk of giving up a draft pick become too high to sign them, such as Orlando and Juan Cruz and, I suspect Jonathan Papelbon next year. I for one would do away with the compensation system and go to hard slotted universal drafts, tradeable picks, but not because “it’s unfair because some teams choose not to partake” but for the reasons listed above.
To wish an abolishment of compensation picks you also have to acknowledge this, your players become far less valuable in trade. Without compensation draft picks you wouldn’t have gotten 4 top 100 prospects for Jason Bay, you’d have been lucky to have gotten anyone with the ceiling that Andy LaRoche had. Could you have accepted that tradeoff?
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
maybe, maybe not
some of your arguments are correct, as (imo) is the stand that draft pick compensation should be done away with. Also, you’re right that the Pirates perhaps aren’t taking full advantage. The problem, however, is that the Pirates are not taking advantage for the same reason the Rays weren’t earlier, that you’d rather trade for players you know something about, than go for the draft crapshoot. But the allowing of so many draft picks (some unnecessary) pushes the 2nd round pick so far back that its a whole f-ing round.
The system is broken, because it does not let the draft do what it should. It’s broken because the compensation picks are only helping owners keep salaries down. The effect on the Pirates is secondary, but it is a tangible one, that lets the rich get richer.
Your Bay and prosects equation is broken too. It isnt that simple. Bay provides more value to a team in the playoff race- the value of contending for a championship, or increasing the odds thereof. You trade the prospects not just for the value but also the improving odds. Which is why receiving multiple picks when he leaves is not what you are making it out to be.
by BurgherKing on Feb 27, 2011 11:49 PM EST up reply actions
I actually agree with you
The flaws in the system are that it is unfair to older players and that the sandwich round picks dilute the second round. (Well, also that the Elias rankings make no sense.)
Now, I think that the dilution of the second round is a pretty big problem. The MLB draft is intended to give teams that haven’t been succeeding at the major league level a chance to catch up by giving them the opportunity to draft better amateur talent. This is especially important in MLB, where some teams can way outspend others. The sandwich round goes against this; basically the teams that lose free agents, which will be better teams and teams that aren’t trying to rebuild, get all the second-round talents, and the second round is effectively the third round. That’s the big problem. Note also that teams that are trying to give their up and coming players a shot won’t have an easy time picking up the Hawpes and Quallses of the world, since they should be using their September callups on those young players.
The picks that move around in the first and second rounds aren’t particular fair or unfair (except to the players who have less leverage because of type A status), I agree. They should be factored into trade prices, and they don’t hurt teams that aren’t involved, the way the sandwich picks do. On the other hand it is relevant that they don’t accomplish their stated goal of compensating teams that lose homegrown talent.
But why are you on your high horse about how everyone else in this thread is being illogical? You’re consistently getting basic facts wrong. You said that the Rays were being compensated for losing players they had developed, when that is simply not true. You’re also claiming that the Pirates got four top 100 prospects for Jason Bay, when Moss and Hansen were throw-ins (they may have been top 100 prospects at one point, but I defy you to find a top 100 list that had them on it when they were traded). And it seems unlikely that the compensatory draft picks had anything to do with the Pirates’ being able to get LaRoche for Bay, since the Dodgers weren’t even getting those picks.
So look to your own arguments before you start calling other people illogical.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 28, 2011 12:03 AM EST up reply actions
Hah, that is interesting. Sox only gave up Moss and Hansen. Hardly top prospects in baseball. The Dodgers paid the King’s ransom for Manny.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
Sox also gave up
Manny, and Manny’s salary. I’d say they gave enough overall…
by BurgherKing on Feb 28, 2011 12:22 AM EST up reply actions
Hansen was rated #54 in 2006, Moss #72 in 2005, in the years 2006-2008, they never got worse, so true, in 2008 they were no longer in the top 100, but still were premium talents. We also gave up Manny Ramirez.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Premium talents
I don’t see anything in their MLB time to suggest that they were premium talents.
I don’t see anything in their minor league time to suggest that they were premium talents.
And yes, the Red Sox gave up Manny. But they wanted him and his salary gone.
The basic argument as I read it
Is, “We haven’t gotten compensation draft picks, therefor the system doesn’t work”. And that itself seems like very fuzzy logic to me.
Now as for my basic fact getting being wrong, I’m not looking this up as I go, as for developing, maybe they didn’t strictly develop all of them, but I count Crawford, Pena, Balfour and Wheeler as “theirs” maybe they were older but they had been there for a while and compensation was deserved. As for players they traded for or signed to short deals, props to Tampa for playing the system.
But once again Moss and Hansen, they may not have been top 100 at the time, but they weren’t slouches either, definitely not throw ins. Moss was at minimum going to be a major league defensive replacement with the potential to be a regular starter, Hansen hadn’t yet become a fallen prospect by 2008, he had struggled in the majors but it still could have been an issue of time. Now we know he’s a head case, but at the time, neither were just throw ins.
The Dodgers on the other hand were presumably getting Manny Ramirez and his type A status draft picks in return.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
The basic argument as I read it
Is, "We haven’t gotten compensation draft picks, therefor the system doesn’t work". And that itself seems like very fuzzy logic to me.
That’s because it’s a straw man argument that you made up. The basic argument, if you actually read the posts in this thread, is that the system should be severely restricted or rearranged so that it serves its original original purpose, which it doesn’t currently do. Or else it should be scrapped altogether. Nobody is saying that the problem is that the Pirates don’t get comp picks.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Feb 28, 2011 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The Rays didn’t get compensation for Pena and Wheeler. They didn’t offer arbitration to either.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
A great way to start ...
would banning the handshake agreements that allow guys like Hawpe to decline arbitration.
RogueNine, are you even reading the posts you're responding to?
I listed the players for whom the Rays are getting comp picks. Pena and Wheeler weren’t on the list.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 28, 2011 6:44 AM EST up reply actions
The MLB draft is intended to give teams that haven’t been succeeding at the major league level a chance to catch up by giving them the opportunity to draft better amateur talent.
This is an important point. The draft is not intended to reward teams for being well run, it’s intended to help weaker teams make up the gap. If the idea was to reward the best teams, then the best team would draft first and the worst team would draft last. And, sure enough, BP did a study a couple years ago that shows that the single biggest factor contributing to increased competition in MLB historically has been the draft.
The comp system undermines the purpose of the draft’s structure. As the Rays show, in practice it doesn’t reward teams that develop players, it simply rewards the better teams because they lose the better players. Over the years that’s typically been teams that sign FAs, let them walk, get comp picks, then sign other FAs to replace them. The bulk of the comp picks usually have not gone to teams that developed the players they lost. There are 27 supplemental round picks in this draft. You know how many were awarded on account of players who were developed by the teams getting the picks? Two. That’s a whopping seven percent, in case you’re wondering.
Saying the Pirates should be like the Rays is especially stupid. The Rays are getting most of their picks for rent-a-players they picked up late in the season for their stretch run and for veteran relievers they signed to fill out their bullpen. A team like the Pirates shouldn’t be picking up players like that. A guy like Hawpe is a wasted roster spot for a team that isn’t contending and that needs to look at younger players. Same with the bullpen. It should be the last priority for a rebuilding team. If the comp system would encourage a team like the Pirates to act irrationally, it’s a bad system.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
So, in other words,
you didn’t read a word that I wrote, and took it as an excuse to keep on blathering.
Let me reiterate: You have your opinion, others have theirs. Neither is going to convince the other to change.
You’re not being paid by the word, are you?
You haven’t received a compensation draft pick because you haven’t let any potential Type A/B players reach free agency. You’ve had them, and then you traded them away in stead, for prospects rather than draft picks.
You’ve stated this 138,793 times already.
I KNOW how the compensation picks work. I am also quite aware of the Pirates’ drafting and trading histories. You’d needn’t continue to explain it. I’m not a child.
Things slow in Sox land, eh?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 28, 2011 12:09 AM EST up reply actions
Funny
You haven’t made a single comment in this particular line of discussion and yet you’re here criticizing my views? Where do you stand on this.
I repeat because you’ve offered nothing in contrary to my views, nothing at all really besides “whoops” and suggesting to expand the German Empire.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
No,
not criticizing your views, simply tired of the repetition of your position, which, I will reiterate, is not going to change, nor are you going to change anyone else’s view, ergo the exercise is futile.
THAT’S where I “stand” on this.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 28, 2011 12:46 AM EST up reply actions
I repeat it because hopefully one time I’ll eventually put it in a way that makes sense, because so far it apparently doesn’t. The idea makes sense to me, that teams should get picks for players they trade for, but I have a hard time translating that.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
I noticed..
you haven’t responded to any of WTMs comments. The draft is set up to give losing teams a chance to be competitive through getting first dibs at amatuear talent. When the worst team in the league has a second round pick at 61; after two of the best teams end up with 10-11 picks at the end 1st round, something is wrong with the system. The Pirates aren’t getting robbed because they are too poor to afford Type A’s. They’ll have their chance when Alvarez and McCutchen and crew reach free agency. The problem is the Elias system is ridiculous and the compensation system is broke. You make good points but no way should the wors team in the league have their 2nd pick at 61. This system is broken.
I repeat it because hopefully one time I’ll eventually put it in a way that makes sense, because so far it apparently doesn’t.
You’re repeating it even though you’re not changing anyone’s view. As I’ve had to repeat for a third fourth time now.
And if you’re having such a difficult time “translating that,” perhaps you could sit down and write a few drafts in Word instead of endlessly repeating the same thing.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 28, 2011 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
Of course it’s working fine for a lot of teams — look at the amount of teams with compensation picks. I wouldn’t be complaining one bit if the Pirates pulled a Brad Hawpe with Garrett Atkins, got him to play 30 games, and still get a sandwich pick out of him.
It’s the fact that these exceptions not only exist, but are so easy to exploit, that causes these problems. Relievers outside of the elite shouldn’t be worth compensation. A man signed on a minor league contract (meaning nothing was even given up for him compensation wise) shouldn’t even be traded for a 23-year-old A player, let alone be worth compensation.
But, with trades, I guess that is the gamble one takes. Take the surefire prospects now and hope they help out sooner, or lose ’em to free agency but get a decent return on the sandwich picks from said player.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
That your management choses a different path isn’t particularly a valid argument.
It has partly been a choice, as I indicated in the post, and has partly been because it would be silly or irresponsible for the Pirates to spend on the kinds of players who become Type A’s. Guys who become Type A players (with the exception of relievers) tend to be expensive veteran acquisitions, and that’s why poor teams in last place usually don’t get them. For example, the Red Sox will get two picks for Adrian Beltre this year. The Sox signed Beltre as a free agent. It would have been impossible for the Pirates to sign him, and it would not have made any sense either. So in that case and many others, the Red Sox are being rewarded for being a contending team with lots of money, while the Pirates receive nothing to help them compete despite being a losing team that has none. That only makes sense if you want a system of haves and have-nots.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 27, 2011 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
Then develop talent
Signing future potential type As isn’t the only way to do it. A good talent evaluation and development system goes a long way. It’s a shame that not a lot of your top picks in the early part of the decade didn’t work out, but oh well. It’s the way it works.
It’s not like Tampa is going out signing Type A’s left and right, they can’t afford them either, instead they draft well and when the time comes, they accept their picks like they did this year. You could have kept Bay and then taken picks, you could have kept McClouth or Nady, instead you traded them and got compensated in a different way.
The pick compensation system largely works, the Pirates just haven’t developed the talent, that’s not a failure of the system, its a failure of the Pirates and some bad luck.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
The point of compensatory picks
Was to somewhat even the playing field for teams that could not re-sign their free agents. If all teams had the equal opportunity to sign Type A or B free agents, then there would be no need to have compensatory picks at all. The only reason they exist is to attempt to level the playing field.
My question about doing away with comp picks in the case of players like Bay who are just entering free agency for the first time is this:
Does a comp pick in any way raise the value of the prospects that could be gained in trade by the original team?
With Bay being a potential Type A free agent, did the Sox take that into consideration and give up more than they otherwise would have if there were no compensation picks possible?
My guess has always been that the comp picks indeed should raise the value of prospects gained in that kind of trade, and so it would be counter-productive to do away with them.
However, I do think that comp picks should only be awarded for players entering free agency the very first time. After that, there is no need for comp picks, because those players are receiving their full value in their contracts.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 27, 2011 6:44 PM EST up reply actions
TAMPA HELD ON TO CRAWFORD, PENA, ETC.. BECAUSE THEY WERE COMPETING FOR A CHAMPIONSHIP!!!!!!
arghghhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the pirates were in last place with no minor league system to speak of and their “star” players a virtual lock to be leaving town in a couple of seasons…
am i the only one who sees this???
And who’s fault is that? It’s not like they’re outspending you by leaps and bounds. They draft very well and develop very well and in the end have a lot of good young players that they couldn’t afford to keep.
You guys have drafted at a similar position to them for most of the last decade but without the same results. You’ve traded your best players for a lot of prospects that rarely seem to work. At some point can’t you consider that the problem isn’t with the system but rather your own fault for having a sub-par evaluation and development system?
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
I don't hate the Pirates
They’re my second favorite team, I do however hate to see people try and blame the system for their own short comings. The system itself hasn’t worked for the Pirates, but not because the system is flawed, but because the Pirates haven’t been able to take advantage of it because of their own flaws. To get picks you have to develop talent. All teams draft every year just the same, you guys have had access to the most premium talent in those drafts and what do you have to show for it? Not a whole lot. What do the Rays have to show for it? A lot, and really, financially, they aren’t in a better situation than you are, but it works for them because their prospects have largely worked out.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
you are saying that they draft very well, and develop very well...
our current FO has been in power 3 years, man. give them some time…
your problem is that you are expecting wins asap, which is fine to a point. it took the Rays exactly 10 years to have a winning season and the only person on record who saw that coming was Mr. Buster Olney.
i have been a Rays fan since their inception and ive seen how their old ownership wasted money and resources and how their new regime has built from the bottom up.
alot of it is skill, most of it is luck. plain and simple.
for example: rocco baldelli and josh hamilton. one has a delibitating disease that saps his playing ability while the other loses 3 years of service time to suspensions. are the Rays bad at judging players or just unlucky with these two?
look at carlos pena: released by numerous clubs. signed by the rays as AAA filler when greg norton, their starting 1B at the time, goes down with a serious injury. pena starts the season with the team and becomes a huge slugger.
now is that talent evaluating, or just plain luck?
red pill, blue pill… choose wisely, son
Which is why I’m saying that complaining about the method of which compensation draft picks are awarded is silly, just on the basis that they don’t ever get compensation draft picks. It’s not that the system is slated against them, it’s that they haven’t developed the talent. The Pirates have nearly two decades of losing seasons, top half draft picks and what do they have to show for it? The new administration they have seems to be better with this but they can’t blame the system because their last management sucked.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Yeah but,...
Regardless of whether it’s fair for these other teams to pick ahead of the Pirates’ and other teams’ second round choices, the Pirates have still been relatively cheap, and perhaps a little uninformed, and thus unable to take advantage of the system in some of these circumstances… They note the relievers and cite Roberto Hernandez, but Pitt was too cheap and wanted to reep the small financial benefits and insisted on dealing him along with Perez… As for Bay, one could argue that those draft picks would have been a better return than what they actually decided to take in return, and again it’s clear that half the Bay deal was to trim a little more millions off of the remainder of the season’s payroll… There’s no reason they shouldn’t have received a player(s) with a premium chance of MLB success.. Even a similiar return to the Nady deal might have been deemed acceptable..
You can even bring up Jose Bautista, though it was highly unlikely he’d perform to any extent of the level he did last year in a Bucs uniform(not to point fingers either, but there’s a chance that the improvement is scientifically induced), the team dealt Bautista basically for the lone reason that Bob wanted to shed a little more money, and make an investment on the almighty ski resort…
They’re slowly turning the corner, due to the recent efforts of improving the farm system and drafting well/taking worthy risks, but they still look inempt when it comes to the whole Bay and Bautista ordeals..
They really should be taking advantage of little quirks like these and not disregard them, especially if they’re not really upgrading the team in free agency or even trades.. Perhaps that might have been part of the thinking in adding the Correia, Overbay and Diaz types..
Speaking of which.. About 20 million or more than half the current Bucs payroll on..
Chris Snyder(Jack Wilson of Catchers??), Ryan Doumit, Lyle Overbay, Kevin Correia
Wasted money much?
Exactly I think
This argument to me is like a kid watching a bunch of people on a ferris wheel and complaining about not riding when there is nothing stopping him from doing so and joining. It is possible to hold onto players past the trade deadline to get a different type of compensation. That your management makes bad trades isn’t the fault of the system.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
This argument to me is like a kid watching a bunch of people on a ferris wheel and complaining about not riding when there is nothing stopping him from doing so and joining
… except that riding the ferris wheel costs money, and he has none.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 27, 2011 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
Fine, a free ferris wheel.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Whoops!
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 27, 2011 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
"... and again it’s clear that half the Bay deal was to trim a little more millions off of the remainder of the season’s payroll… "
Disagree.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 27, 2011 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
Speaking of Bay/Bautista
The plan to rid themselves of Bautista in an attempt to hype up the “centerpiece” in the Bay deal, Andy LaRoche, sure worked out great, almost as bad as the Kris Benson/Ryan Howard/Brad Eldred fiasco?
Or Bautista wasn’t producing and LaRoche was a top prospect in all of baseball.
Good attempt at using hindsight, but two different scenarios. No one was sad to see Bautista leave.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
by ryebr3ad on Feb 27, 2011 2:30 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah.
I was just reading through the comments in the post on BD about Jose Bautista being traded. It’s mostly a mixed reaction. Mostly just people saying he wasn’t worthless, but the amount of money he was making was too much to pay a bench player.
by IAPiratesFan on Feb 27, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Needless conspiracy theorizing
The Pirates didn’t trade Bautista to hype up Andy LaRoche, they traded him because he’d played very poorly.
Check out Bautista’s fangraphs page, and LaRoche’s. In the three years that Bautista spent mostly with the Pirates, he put up a total of 0.8 WAR. In the three years that LaRoche spent mostly with the Pirates, he put up a total of 1.0 WAR. Which is to say that Bautista was arguably* worse than LaRoche with the Pirates, even though LaRoche was a total disaster two of those three years.
You can say that the Bautista deal reflects poor coaching, in that they weren’t able to convince him to make the adjustment to his swing that turned him into a 50-HR hitter. You can say that it reflects failure to recognize future talent. But you have to acknowledge that, with the Pirates, Bautista played like a bench guy at best.
*I say arguably because a lot of the difference comes from UZR, and I don’t think defensive metrics are that precise. But it’s pretty safe to say that with the Pirates Bautista was a butcher at third and below average at the plate, which adds up to a bad baseball player.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 27, 2011 5:38 PM EST up reply actions
I think the system would be much better if there was some time commitment required.
Such as, for a compensation pick, a player who has denied arb must hav e been a member of your org. for at least 3 full seasons.
Also, as long as the system is what it is, the Pirates need to do a better job of getting involved in it. Charlie’s points are well taken and correct, but it would be nice to see the Pirates manipulate the system and a least get some extra picks.
Everything that guy just said is bullshit . . .thank you
I think it’s fairly certain that this system is going to be overhauled in the next CFA. There are a lot of people within the game who seem dislike it. The real question is what will the next system look like and how that will effect the Pirates strategy. Will there be hard slotting? Will there be a world-wide draft? What kind of free-agent compensation will there be?
On the last point, I think compensatory picks should be strictly taking the acquiring team’s picks. Awarding so many picks between the 1st and 2nd round penalizes teams that were completely uninvolved in the transaction. Teams that were not involved shouldn’t be getting punished with a lousier draft pick.
Also, raise the jolly roger! Don’t know about anyone else, but I enjoyed that game. Hope Beimel’s issue is minor.
I’d get rid of the FA comp picks altogether. Would the Steelers get another draft choice between 1st and 2nd if Charlie Batch left for FA? Only in baseball…
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 27, 2011 5:52 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Actually there are compensatory picks in the NFL...
But they start after round 3 (#97 overall). And as a comparison to some of the examples folks have thrown out of players who have earned their teams picks between 31 & 60 in baseball , when pereennial Pro-Bowler Allen Faneca left the Steelers as a Free Agent, the Steelers compensation was only a 5th rounder (meaning between the 5th & 6th rounds). Brad Hqwpe signs a minor-league contract for Tampa Bay, plays twenty some games and is worth an equivalent 2nd round pick but one of the best offensive linemen of the last decade merits only a 5th round pick in the NFL? The MLB compensation system is a total joke.
I like some of the ideas I've heard...
I would do the following (some have been mentioned already):
a) only award picks for players developed by the team (minor leaguers acquired in trades would count).
b) start the compensation round after round 2
c) limit the number of comp picks to one per round (i.e. if a team has 3 picks they would come at the end of rd 2, 3 &4).
c) limit the number of comp picks per draft – I don’t know a good number but any more than 4 or 5 seems ridiculous
d) use a weighted WAR metric to assign Type A & Type B status.
I’m sure d) would never happen but the Elias rankings are ridiculous and antiquated to say the least.
yeah
limit the number of comp picks per draft
Perhaps, also limit it to a small number per round… I know you suggested limiting to 1 pick per team, thus causing a limit of 30, but i meant even further to 5 or so, so the team picking 1st in rd 2, doesnt get pushed back by 15 slots… this number can increase with increasing round number, i suppose.
Also, as someone pointed out (in the thread on OBN, i think), if the Yanks had signed Cliff lee and Rafael Soriano, the Rangers wouldnt have gotten the Yanks first rd pick coz Soriano had a higher score. That blows the mind…
limit it to zero
What purpose do they serve, other than having the rich get richer?
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 28, 2011 12:05 AM EST up reply actions
oh, i'd absolutely do that
as i said earlier in the thread.
That’s more of a in-case-it-has-to-stay-in-some-form.
by BurgherKing on Feb 28, 2011 12:16 AM EST up reply actions
The reward a team for losing a player they can't afford to resign...
I sure as hell hope we still have some type of system in place when Alvarez and Cutch reach free agency in case they are kept to make a serious run at the world series instead of trading them (assuming both refuse to sign extensions before then).
Does Elias not realize that relievers are essentially the bench players of the pitching staff? It’s rather pathetic how they alone break the system due to lazy evaluation of these free agents.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
also
Does MLB not realize that Elias is broken?
by BurgherKing on Feb 28, 2011 12:23 AM EST up reply actions
Careful what you wish for!
This system surely has hurt the Pirates, but the draft process has been circumvented by teams. The Pirates have recently begun to spend a lot of money in Latin America in hopes of “finding” young guys and signing them to reasonable deals. I am sure that if the system is overhauled, it will be changed in a way that ends players being signed without having to go through the draft process. This may hurt the Pirates, since it seems they have made a major investment in Latin America. I am sure they hope to locate and sign talent without having to deal with the likes of Scott Boris. I am not saying that some of these players might slip through the cracks and go undrafted, but the current system does have some upside for the Pirates. I do agree that far too many supplemental picks are given in the draft. Teams should only be re-imbursed for talent they develop, but tinkering the system may lead to wholesale changes. I am hopeful improved scouting and a concentrated effort in Latin America will pay big dividends for the Pirates under the current system. Only time will tell, but if the system undergoes major changes the money spent on development will be worthless. You will develop guys only to have them be possible stars and then find a guy like Boris. This will really hurt your return on investment. This is hypothetical, but changes made usually are not made to benefit only small market teams. The large market teams find ways to tinker with the system when changes are made for their benefit.
My problem...
My main problem is that a team can lose a Type A, sign a Type A that same year…and PICK UP a sandwich pick in the process.
If a Tampa Bay loses 3 Type A’s in a year and does not sign a Type A…then I can see an argument for getting the other teams’ picks, plus sandwich picks. Due to this circumstance (as the Pirates could very well find themselves in this position down the road), I cannot see putting a hard limit on sandwich picks…but see my next point.
But if Boston loses a Type A, goes out and signs a Type A (thus potentially swapping 1st round picks), they also land a sandwich pick for the loss of theirs? I don’t understand this — if we are going to work to limit sandwich picks, why not put a rule in place: If you sign a Type-A free agent, you lose the ability to obtain ANY sandwich picks. This will hinder big spenders from taking advantage of the sandwich pick system as it currently stands…yet will help teams that cannot afford to keep big money talent.
This
coupled with ending Type A and B status for relief pitchers would be a good idea.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 28, 2011 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
