My idea to fix the draft

[paul253]

At least the compensation aspect of it. I think the compensation rules are a joke and they hurt the bad teams more than they help. My idea to fix it is this:

 

-Keep the Type A and Type B free agents and the same way to determine who fits into the category. Then you assigned a value to each category. A Type A free agent is worth 3 "points" and a Type B free agent is worth 1 point.

- For every free agent you lose who is either a type A or B free agent, you obtain a score based on the value of the player you lose. For instance, if you lose one type A free agent, your score is 3 since a type A free agent was assigned a value of 3 points. If you lose two type A free agents, your score is 6. If you lose one type A and one type B, your score is 4. And so on

-For every free agent you sign who is either a type A or type B free agent, that goes towards you score as well but in a negative value. For instance, if you sign one type A free agent you have a score of -3 (in other words you lose three points). If you sign a type A and a type B free agent your score is -4. And so on

-After all the free agents have been signed, every team is assigned a score based on the total amount of type A and B free agents that they both sign and lose. It's simple math really. If you sign one type A (-3 points) and lose one type A (+3) your score is 0. In other words, it's a wash. If you sign a type A (-3) and lose a type b (+1) your score is -2. If you sign a type B (-1) and lose two type As (+6) your final score is 5. And so on

 

Here's the real change. If you end up with a score from 1-3, you gain one extra pick at the end of round 3. If you end with a score 4-6, you gain one pick at the end of the second round. If your final score is 7-9, you gain one pick at the end of the first round. If your final score is 10 or higher, you gain one pick at the end of round one AND one pick at the end of round 2.

 

On the flip side, if your final score is 0 or -1, nothing happens. If it goes from -2 through -4, you lose your third round pick. No team gets it, you just lose it. If your final score goes from -5 through -7, you lose your second round pick. Anything -8 or lower, you lose your first round pick. I know the positive scores for gaining picks and negative scores for losing picks don't match up exactly, but I don't think a team should lose a draft pick just for signing one type B free agent.

 

I'd keep the comp pick for failing to sign a first round pick. I think that's a good rule.

 

The reason I want this is because it limits the amount of comp picks handed out. In this years draft, there are 27 comp picks handed out before round 2 begins. That's almost an entire round and it punishes teams like Pittsburgh and Baltimore who are terrible but have to wait while division winners and playoff teams get multiple comp picks. Just taking two teams from this past season to see how my rules would affect them.

 

Tampa Bay: They lost 3 type A free agents and 4 type B free agents. They signed none so their score would be 13. So in my scenario TB would receive an extra pick after both round one and round 2. Under current rules they received 9 comp picks before round 2.

 

Boston: Lost 2 type A free agents and signed 1 type A. Their score would be 3 and they'd get one pick at the end of round 3. Under current rules they lost a first round pick (#24 overall) but gained 4 picks including #19 overall and #26 overall for the free agents they lost.

 

It's important to note also that since there would be far fewer comp picks handed out with my rules and a round 2 or round 3 comp pick in my scenario would be a lot higher than a round 2 or 3 pick right now. Right now, round two technically starts at pick #61. Without going through every teams free agents moves I'd guess round 2 in my scenario would start somewhere in the late 30s or early 40s meaning bad teams like Pittsburgh would get their second choice twenty some picks higher.

 

It sounds complicated but really it's not. I was wondering what everyone here thinks.

[Ennder]

All I can say is the team who signs your player shouldn't make a difference. The fact that some scrub team signed your mega free agent shouldn't change your pick, the fact that some team signed an even better guy shouldn't change your compensation. The entire system is pretty terrible. You should assign value to a player and get value based on that assignation regardless of who signs what players.

[pingman]

my brainstorming idea:

 

1) Free Agency compensation. Best explained by example.... lets say Fielder signs with the Angels....

 

Brewers select a player(s) from the Angels roster including their farm system (let the Angels protect a set number of players or prospects) ....there would be an interesting strategy: do you protect players or prospects? "5 & 10" players would be exempt....

 

2) Reduce the draft to 15 rounds & would be expanded to include "World" prospects..... salary & signing bonuses would be "slotted" to stop the current "signability" joke that we currrently see & the manipulation of the draft system by super agents like Boras .....

 

3) Allow draft choices to be traded....but you can't do this without #2 above

[paul253]

There a lot of changes I would make but this compensation thing is getting ridiculous. It's inconsistent and like Ennder said its affected way too much by who signs someone and who else that same team signs. When the Brewers lose the second best free agent and receive a 2nd round pick in return vs a team who loses the six or seventh best free agent and gets a first round pick....that's [expletive deleted by mod]. Or a team like Boston who loses a type A, signs a type A but moves up four spots in the draft. Or the Yankees who sign two type A's and lose none but still get a first round pick because its protected from compensation. My idea may not be perfect, but at least it takes into consideration the whole aspect of free agency, not just one individual transaction at a time. More and more teams are relying on the draft to build the franchise because free agents cost too expensive, yet MLB hands out comp picks like candy and the neediest teams end up picking 25 slots lower than they should be. In my version, the most comp picks a team can get is 2 and even that would be rare. Obviously a world wide draft and a hard slotting system would be nice but if I could make one change for the draft it would be to the compensation portion. I'd like to see teams being able to trade picks too but until you fix the comp that's not really realistic because so many teams are losing and gaining picks right now. If the Brewers trade Fielder to the Yankees at the trade deadline for a first round pick, then the Yankees go out and sign a type A and lose their first round pick, what happens to the trade? Do the Brewers now get a second round pick? Next season's first round pick? This thing is so badly in need to repair. I know it will be a topic on the next CBA, I just hope they go far enough.

 

 

(edit: removed "BS" --1992)

[mothershipconnection]

I'd be in favor of the ratings system being supplemented with duration of contract in determining compensation. It's messy when a has-been who squeaks into Type A commands the same compensation as a 27-year old superstar, and more than a very good Type B still in his prime who signs a 3-4 year deal. I don't have concrete ideas on this, but if a Type A only gets a 1-year deal, he's not really that valuable, and perhaps should net a sandwhich pick at most. That would also prevent teams from being scared of signing players ranked A, but just not that good.

 

I'm also completely on board with a hard slotting system - if the crappy team doesn't end up with the top player because he wants too much, it cripples the purpose of the draft.

 

I've also banged the drum of pick forfeiture for international signings. Assign a dollar value, and the team loses a pick in a corresponding round for any player signed in that range. Big signings like Dice-K could cost a 1st rounder, the big Latin American contracts would cost a 1st or 2nd, and average Latin American bonuses wouldn't cost anything.

[swamilee]

1) This was the old compensation system. Tom Henke was taken from the Rangers and Tom Seaver from the Mets (Time #2). The players didn't like it.

2) How would you fill 5-8 farm teams with only 15 draft picks?

3) The owners hated how Pete Incaviglia held the Expos hostage and don't want that to happen again. It's called The Incaviglia Rule, no trading allowed in the first year.

 

 

 

 

 

pingman wrote:

---

my brainstorming idea:

 

1) Free Agency compensation. Best explained by example.... lets say Fielder signs with the Angels....

 

Brewers select a player(s) from the Angels roster including their farm system (let the Angels protect a set number of players or prospects) ....there would be an interesting strategy: do you protect players or prospects? "5 & 10" players would be exempt....

 

2) Reduce the draft to 15 rounds & would be expanded to include "World" prospects..... salary & signing bonuses would be "slotted" to stop the current "signability" joke that we currrently see & the manipulation of the draft system by super agents like Boras .....

 

3) Allow draft choices to be traded....but you can't do this without #2 above

[pingman]

how would you fill minor league rosters with only 15 rounds in the draft? undrafted free agents

[paul253]

I'd make the draft 20 or 25 rounds.

[nate82]

It would probably be best to do away with the type A and B free agents and just go with a franchise tag. This way you can limit the free agents a team can sign. An example of this would be that a team can franchise one player and only once in their career with that team. So lets say the Brewers franchise Prince this off season. The Brewers would then have the right to either match the contract or receive compensation a 1st and 3rd round draft pick a team can only sign one franchise player a year. If the franchised player does not sign with another team in free agency that player gets average of the top three players at their position. So lets say in this same scenario no teams offer Prince a contract and he doesn't sign with anyone else that means he would get a 1-year contract worth the average of the top 3 players at his position which would be $23m.

Not the perfect system but it at least gets rid of some of the silliness that is the MLB compensation for free agents. This also makes big market and small market teams actually do some strategy on who they are going to place a tag on when they are only limited to one player to sign or tag as a franchise player. This would definitely make the teams like the Yankees and others think about signing one player over the other if they are only able to sign one big named player a year.

An international draft for players under the age of 28 would be ideal. If a player is older than 28 I don't see a need for them to enter the draft as they are no longer an amateur player.

[dlk9s]

how would you fill minor league rosters with only 15 rounds in the draft? undrafted free agents

But why is that better than just having a longer draft?

[paul253]

I think any fix has to drastically reduce the number of compensation picks handed out. The point of the draft is to allow the worst teams to choose the best amateur players to help improve the team. The draft right now is way too much about reimbursing teams for lost free agents. If you want to reimburse teams for losing free agents fine. But don't do it at the expense of the bad teams who didn't really have any good players to lose. And it needs to be consistent. One team may lose a "type A" FA and get the 17th overall pick. Another team may lose a type A and get a pick in the 60s. That's why my idea severely limits the number of comp picks you can receive (2 at the most) and also makes all comp picks consistent (at the end of a round). It also takes the entire off-season into affect instead of basing it on single transactions.

[CheezWizHed]

how would you fill minor league rosters with only 15 rounds in the draft? undrafted free agents

But why is that better than just having a longer draft?

Its worse IMO. There are plenty of people at this point that are high talent, but have strong college scholarships. So allowing them to be UDFAs favors the team that can shell out more money to lure them away. Plus there is plenty of talent at this point still (Green and Cain both were drafted later than the 15th round.) 25 rounds should be sufficient.

 

I think the NFL has a decent compensation strategy. Look at the total lost and gained FAs and compensate on that. If the teams made the playoffs, they are limited in compensation.

[JohnBriggs12]

how would you fill minor league rosters with only 15 rounds in the draft? undrafted free agents

But why is that better than just having a longer draft?

Its worse IMO. There are plenty of people at this point that are high talent, but have strong college scholarships. So allowing them to be UDFAs favors the team that can shell out more money to lure them away. Plus there is plenty of talent at this point still (Green and Cain both were drafted later than the 15th round.) 25 rounds should be sufficient.

 

I think the NFL has a decent compensation strategy. Look at the total lost and gained FAs and compensate on that. If the teams made the playoffs, they are limited in compensation.

I like the idea of a shorter draft. Teams are not going to overspend on guys who aren't drafted say in 20 rounds, so I don't see a benefit for richer teams. Besides, unless those richer teams have more affiliates, they only have as many openings as the poorer teams. For an undrafted player, it's all about picking the situation with the best opportunity. If you are say a 35th rounder that's a catcher, and the team drafting you selected 4 other catchers ahead of you, you aren't going to get much of a shot.

 

The shorter draft benefits the guys who would be low round picks otherwise. In the NFL where there are only 7 rounds, there are plenty of quality players not drafted. They get to choose which team gives them the best chance.

[CheezWizHed]

Teams are not going to overspend on guys who aren't drafted say in 20 rounds, so I don't see a benefit for richer teams.

 

Ok, you picked 20, I picked 25 rounds. Mainly I was thinking of the end of the teen rounds where those few players that have a strong college commitment get drafted, then signed to an above slot amount to sign them (Gennett for example). 20 or 25 rounds should cover that, but 15 would not.

 

Of course, adding in international players to the draft might bump it a bit deeper also.