Ideas on an alternative system to handle rewarding draft picks for a free agent.

[thefutureoftherapy]

After reading Adam McCalvy's posting "Brewers' Draft Hopes Take Hit," I got me thinking of alternative solutions that may improve the current system on receiving draft pick(s) for a free agent in this unique situation with the Angels and the Yankees. I think the current draft pick rewarding system is pretty solid, however, I believe (I am a little Brewer biased) the Crew got the short end of the stick. The Angels were rewarded with the Yankees' 1^{st[/sup] round pick while the Brewers received a 2nd[/sup] round pick due to Mark Teixeira's higher Elias ranking of 98.889 compared to Sabathia's 98.110 even though the Yankees had signed Sabathia first.}

 

I was wondering what some your ideas are on developing an alternative system to handle this dilemma.

[jjfanec]

What if the team signing a Type A free agent lost their draft pick the same way done now. So if you sign 3 Type A you lose your first 3 picks.

 

My big issue is that teams are hurt by who signs their players and that makes no sense to me. So what I would put in place a system that allots draft picks based on elias rankings so a team like Rual Ibanez would not give the Mariners more than CC gives the Brewers. That is the flaw in the system.

 

What if each team that signs a type A loses their pick and then each teams pick is replaced not by the team who lost the free agent signed but by the highest ranked free agent. So the Angles would get the Mets first round pick for Tex not K-Rod, then the Brewers would get the Yankees pick for CC not the Angels getting if for Tex. As of right now the Blue Jays would get the Phillies pick for losing A.J. Burnett (instead of the Mariners for Ibanez). The fact that the Blue Jays are getting a third round pick for A.J. Burnett is a joke.

 

So, there are probably huge flaws in my system but I think it at least rewards teams fairly for who they lose while still taking picks from those teams that sign a bunch of free agents.

[bball123h]

I think a community pool might be a good idea (if that is what you are suggesting). All the comp picks are placed in a pool, and then distributed according to the rankings.

[colbyjack]

The only reason this is a big issue is because a very unlikely and uncommon situation happened. I'm unhappy that the Brewers didn't land the Yankees first-round pick, but not because of a flawed system, but due to unfortunate circumstances. How often are there free agents like Mark Teixeira and CC Sabathia available, and how often are they ranked as closely as they are as the top two free agents available that end up signing with the same team?

 

Now, that doesn't mean the system couldn't use some tweaks, although I think the next change may see compensatory picks done away with completely. There simply isn't enough support or interest from ownership or the players to push this forward. They tried during the CBA before the last one, and appointed a committee to institute new changes, but nothing ever happened.

 

However, there needs to be some kind of compensatory system in place. I think the biggest tweak that needs to be made is addressing the supplemental picks, in that teams that go out and sign a Type A free agent after losing a Type A free agent should not receive a compensatory pick. Oddly enough, that hasn't happened yet this offseason (at least not that I can think of), but we've seen plenty of similar situations in the past. What that does is whittles down the sandwich round, as the true reason for the draft is to give the worst teams the best opportunities to select and sign the best players. The long the sandwich round means the longer the worst teams at the top of the second round have to wait to make their second pick.

[jjfanec]

The only reason this is a big issue is because a very unlikely and uncommon situation happened. I'm unhappy that the Brewers didn't land the Yankees first-round pick, but not because of a flawed system, but due to unfortunate circumstances. How often are there free agents like Mark Teixeira and CC Sabathia available, and how often are they ranked as closely as they are as the top two free agents available that end up signing with the same team?

Honestly though with the disparity in payroll in baseball continuing to grow it seems most of the big free agents only have about 6-8 teams that can afford them at the most so it seems like it is likely to happen again. I mean the Yankees got the one, two and four guys this off-season. I am disappointed about CC but I feel like Jays fans have to be ticked off that they got a 3rd round pick for Burnett. Also the idea that a guy like Ibanez nets a better package of picks than CC or Burnett leads me to believe that a way to pool comp picks and then give them out in order of rankings would be better, but maybe that would be chaos.

[And That]

Why not allocate Type A comp picks throughout the first round after #15 based on Elias score (which I could only hope would be significantly updated) per team. So instead of the Brewers getting the Yankees 2nd round pick, they would get the pick immediately after Texieira?

[colbyjack]

Honestly though with the disparity in payroll in baseball continuing to grow it seems most of the big free agents only have about 6-8 teams that can afford them at the most so it seems like it is likely to happen again.

 

Is the disparity getting bigger? The Brewers payroll is up in the $80-90 million dollar range, so you could argue that locally the disparity has gotten smaller over the past few years since the Yankees payroll really hasn't gotten bigger, the Brewers just happened to catch them during an offseason in which they had a lot of money coming off of the books.

 

The disparity remains the difference between the Yankees and the Red Sox, and the Red Sox and the Mets, Dodgers and Angels and then the difference between everyone else.

 

Also the idea that a guy like Ibanez nets a better package of picks than CC or Burnett leads me to believe that a way to pool comp picks and then give them out in order of rankings would be better, but maybe that would be chaos.

 

You shouldn't look at it as the package of picks. Again, it's the circumstance. You can argue that Ibanez shouldn't garner the Mariners as high as a sandwich pick as he does, or at least not a better sandwich pick that Sabathia garners the Brewers, but really, how can you argue the other pick and the entire "package" of picks? If Ibanez too signed with the Yankees, that comparison wouldn't even apply. It's luck of the draw, and luck unfortunately isn't on the Brewers side this offseason.

 

It's kind of like the overtime rule in the NFL. When the Packers lost to the Bears in overtime this past year, the rules (locally) were questioned again and again. However, were the rules questioned a year ago when the Packers beat the Broncos in overtime? What makes one win indifferent and a similar loss unfair? No one would even be questioning the draft rules on this forum if it weren't for what happened this offseason.

[jjfanec]

I guess you are right with the disparity thing but it does seem that your top tier free agents only have a few places that can actually afford them. The truth of the situation is that with a new stadium for each New York team I could see both of them signing two type A guys in numerous off-seasons. That means this same scenario could play out again.

 

However, on the draft thing I get your point that it is the luck of the draw. Last year I thought the Brewers got a lot for Linebrink considering what he was. The truth is though with the NFL overtime thing I have always hated it because I do not like luck of the draw type things. Sure I like the benefit my team received from the luck just like last year I like that the Brewers got an early second round pick for Linebrink, but that does mean I think it is the best way of doing things. Don't you feel like there could be a better way of doing the compensation system or do you like it as is? The topic is look at alternatives and I think there are some that could work to compensate teams losing free agents better or at in a way that matches the value of the player better.

[colbyjack]

No, I don't like the compensation system as it is, and I made one suggestion above. I also think the compensation is a little opposite, since I think the worse team that loses a free agent ranked similar to another one should get the higher pick, while the sandwich picks should be handed out in order of the free agent rankings. But in that scenario, the Brewers would still end up with the Yankees 2nd rounder since the Jays were the worse of the three teams that lost a Type A FA to the Yankees.

 

Toby's idea is interesting, and I have thought before that instead of giving one team's pick to another, why not just strip that team of that pick and give the teams that lose free agent picks some kind of systematic combination of picks in the sandwich round. For instance, with the Brewers losing one Type A and one Type B free agent they would get three comp picks since they didn't sign a notable free agent that was offered arbitration. Or, remove the arbitration part from this part of the compensatory process, and award picks based on overall free agent activity, similar to the NFL (although make the rules more defined than the NFL).

 

However, I do like how random the process can be, as MLB's compensation system is different from the NFL's and from the NBA's. It is weird, quirky stuff like that which makes the game (and the draft) that much more interesting. You almost wonder how the heck someone even thought of some of these things, because it doesn't always make much sense.

[jjfanec]

I also think the compensation is a little opposite, since I think the worse team that loses a free agent ranked similar to another one should get the higher pick, while the sandwich picks should be handed out in order of the free agent rankings.

 

Toby's idea is interesting, and I have thought before that instead of giving one team's pick to another, why not just strip that team of that pick and give the teams that lose free agent picks some kind of systematic combination of picks in the sandwich round. For instance, with the Brewers losing one Type A and one Type B free agent they would get three comp picks since they didn't sign a notable free agent that was offered arbitration. Or, remove the arbitration part from this part of the compensatory process, and award picks based on overall free agent activity, similar to the NFL (although make the rules more defined than the NFL).

Either one of these systems are better in my mind. I like the second one a lot. Get rid of the teams pick all together and then add picks to sandwich round according to who the team lost in free agency. I do not know about removing the arbitration part of it I like that gamble that teams have to take.

[colbyjack]

I do not know about removing the arbitration part of it I like that gamble that teams have to take.

 

I agree that offering/not offering and accepting/declining arbitration are one of the factors that makes the offseason and draft so interesting. However, I meant that the arbitration process should stay the same with the exception of draft pick compensation (meaning, all players lost and signed via free agency would be considered for supplemental round compensation, which would mean Trevor Hoffman's signing could offset some of the picks lost in losing CC and Shouse), and I'm not even sure that's a good idea, just something I've thought about.

[strawbossisevil]

What about this. What if whatever team that picks up a type A free agent allows the other team a pick from their minor league system (with certain exceptions).

 

It would work this way. Each team is allowed to protect 5 non 40 roster players. If they sign more than one type A free agent, the teams get to pick in order of best type A on downward.

 

So, the Yankees, since they signed three type A players this offseason, would protect five prospects, and the rest of their non-40 roster would be up for grabs. The first pick would go to the Angels, the second to the Brewers, the third to the Blue Jays.

[Dmiles23]

This is my idea, and in my opinion, a way to make things much more fair. The protection would be the same as it is currently, with the top 15 picks in the draft protected (so if they sign a Type A free agent, they lose their second round pick). And if a team with picks 16-30 signs a type A free agent, they lose their pick. But then instead of giving that team's pick to the team that lost the free agent, that pick is just eliminated. So, for example, say the following teams sign a type A free agent: Mets with pick 17, Yankees with pick 21, Cubs with pick 23, Red Sox with pick 25, and Angels with pick 29. So instead of having 30 picks in the first round, there will now only be 25 since 5 teams signed type A free agents (so say the Brewers had the 30th pick originally, they would now have the 25th pick).

 

Then, after the first round is complete, the compensatory picks would kick in. In Compensatory Round A, the players would be rated like they are now, and the team losing the highest rated player would pick 26th, and so on. Once each team who lost a type A free agent has pick, Compensatory Round B kicks in. In this round, the compensatory picks are given out similar to how they are now. So if the Mariners are the worst team to lose a type A free agent, they get the first pick and so on. Then in Compensatory Round C, teams that lost type B free agents get their pick, similar to how Compensatory Round A is conducted.

 

If teams sign more than one Type A free agent, the same system as current is used. So the Yankees would lose their first, second, and third round picks, and those picks would just be eliminated from each round. No team would pick in those positions. And if a team loses a Type A free agent but also signs a type A free agent, those transactions wipe each other out, and the team retains their first round pick.

 

Using Colby's work from the Draft Resource Thread, I'll try to use my system to show who would get which picks in the 2009 draft.

 

First-Round:
1. Nationals
2. Mariners
3. Padres
4. Pirates
5. Orioles
6. Giants
7. Braves
8. Reds
9. Tigers
10. Nationals (unsigned '08 pick Aaron Crow)
11. Rockies
12. Royals
13. Athletics
14. Rangers
15. Indians
16. Diamondbacks
17. Dodgers
18. Marlins
19. Cardinals
20. Blue Jays
21. Astros
22. Twins
23. White Sox

· Mets forfeit pick for signing Francisco Rodriguez

· Yankees forfeit pick for signing Mark Teixeira

24. Brewers

· Phillies forfeit pick for signing Raul Ibanez

25. Red Sox
26. Yankees (unsigned '08 pick Gerritt Cole)
27. Rays
28. Cubs

29. Angels (forfeit pick for signing Fuentes, gain it back for losing Teixeira)

 

Compensatory Round A:

30. Brewers for losing Sabathia

31. Blue Jays for losing Burnett

32. Rockies for losing Fuentes

33. Angels for losing Rodriguez

34. Mariners for losing Ibanez

35. Dodgers for losing Lowe

Compensatory Round B:

36. Mariners for losing Ibanez

37. Rockies for losing Fuentes

38. Dodgers for losing Lowe

39. Blue Jays for losing Burnett

40. Brewers for losing Sabathia

41. Angels for losing Rodriguez

Compensatory Round C:

42. Rangers for losing Bradley

43. Angels for losing Garland

44. Brewers for losing Shouse

45. Diamondbacks for losing Lyon

46. Reds for losing Affeldt

 

Second Round:
47. Nationals
48. Mariners
49. Padres
50. Pirates
51. Orioles
52. Giants
53. Reds
54. Tigers
55. Rockies
56. Royals
57. Athletics
58. Rangers
59. Indians
60. Diamondbacks
61. Dodgers
62. Marlins
63. Cardinals
64. Blue Jays
65. Astros
66. Twins
67. White Sox
68. Yankees (unsigned '08 pick Scott Bittle)
69. Mets

· Yankees forfeit pick for signing CC Sabathia

70. Brewers
71. Phillies
72. Red Sox
73. Rays
74. Cubs
75. Angels

 

Third Round:
76. Nationals
77. Mariners
78. Padres
79. Pirates
80. Orioles
81. Giants
82. Braves
83. Reds
84. Tigers
85. Rockies
86. Royals
87. Athletics
88. Rangers
89. Indians
90. Diamondbacks
91. Dodgers
92. Marlins
93. Cardinals
94. Blue Jays
95. Astros
96. Twins
97. White Sox
98. Mets

· Yankees forfeit pick for signing AJ Burnett

99. Brewers
100. Phillies
101. Red Sox
102. Rays
103. Cubs
104. Angels

 

I may have missed something, but that's the drift. I also didn't include any players that have yet to sign.