Topic: Compensatory picks

[And That]

On draft day, what a better time to have a discussion about the current draft issues. The Red Sox and Cardinals, both World Series participants, have 6 picks before the last place Brewers do.

 

Is this system coherent?

 

What, if anything, would you do to fix ths system?

 

C'mon, up all night and morning with Brewerfan. Voice yourself.

 

Belling or Sparky, where are you?

[dnramo]

You mean before the Brewers' second pick?

 

The Red Sox got a second rounder and a sandwich for losing Pedro (a ~40 pick and 59, IIRC). That hardly seems fair.

 

They got first rounders for Lowe and Cabrera, though, along with sandwich picks. That does a little to compensate them for Pedro.

 

All of their picks put together are less likely to net a quality player than the Brewers' #5, though. The draft compensation system hasn't been "fixed" to the extent that it needs to be largely because the draft becomes something of a crapshoot after the top half of the first round. Higher picks are more valuable, of course, but most draft projections fall apart starting in the second half of the first round because any talent consensus evaporates. At that point, teams' skill in scouting and player evaluation takes over.

 

If anything, a team losing a FA should receive more compensation than the current system provides. The Red Sox have a lot of money so their loss of Pedro seems less significant, but what if Sheets had left as a free agent and all the Brewers got back was a ~40 and a ~55? Compensation does far more to help the lower-payroll teams who can't spend to replace losses than it does to help high-payroll teams.

 

I'd like to see the first round go to a lottery system with teams getting extra balls for losing FAs, but that has other potential problems.

[princeginterhallhelms04]

I still think that to make it fair MLB has to allow teams to trade there picks. For ex. some teams like the brewers in the past would not draft certain players because they were hard Signs. What if the brewers or any team could trade that pick for something now.

[And That]

I think with the current system is all comes down to the ability of the teams to trade their top-round picks. Would the Brewers and other small-market teams traded more players to get more picks? Yes, they would.

 

What the current system tried to addres, but doesn't, is that small market teams would get more picks as they lose more migh profile players. In practice, however, the better teams keep getting picks as they lose their All-Stars to replace them with other All-Stars. Is this fair? Nope.

 

How would you make it fair?

[DHonks]

Baseball needs to take a step back and re-evaluate things. Right now, the "reward" of losing a player to free agency isn't as good as getting some marginal AA/AAA prospects to the small market clubs. To the big payroll clubs, why not buy at the deadline, then let them walk, and then get more talent in return?

 

There needs to be something different . Perhaps the first year of free agency, clubs have the right to match contract offers. Or there's something like the NFL with franchise designations. Then again, trades and free agency aren't as fun in the NFL. Perhaps baseball should allow a team to dump a player at the deadline, but still be elligible for draft picks for the guy, rather than merely the team who traded the top guy. So instead of the acquiring team getting a pick after the first round, both trading partners get a compensation pick after the 2nd round.

 

The trading of draft picks would help, along with set salary slots for the draft. For instance, the Brewers deal Spivey at the deadline to the Yankees. Instead of a marginal AA prospect, maybe the Brewers request the Yankees 2nd pick in the 2006 draft, and if this pick isn't in the top two rounds, the Brewers get their 2nd and 3rd selections.

 

Teams shouldn't forfeit draft picks when they sign someone. Right now baseball has a system that punishes teams for signing, while rewarding teams for letting guys walk. The problem is that often times the teams needing draft-talent are neither adding or losing players in free agency. Instead they lose players at the trade deadline. So perhaps there should be a compensation system based on who a team adds and loses from big league opening day rosters until the beginning of the next opening day. This could still utilize the player rankings currently used. For example, the Sexson and Schilling deals for the Crew and Dbacks. The Schilling deal represented a loss of star power, so they'd be elligible for some compensation, even though they worked out a fair trade. The Brewers lost a star, so they should be compensated.

[bjkrautk]

Well, they have 6 picks between the Brewers first and second picks.

 

Sandwich picks are half the problem, IMO. I'd like to see some sort of system in which the net effect of free-agent moves are factored in. The Red Sox, for instance, lost a Class A Shortstop....and then signed a Class A Shortstop. Why do they deserve compensation for a lateral move (or, in actuality), an upgrade. Lose Derek Lowe....sign David Wells, net another sandwich pick. (Can't argue with compensation for Pedro, though.) I'd like to see a system that takes class differences into account when dishing out compensatory picks.

 

Another change that might be worth making would be to allow teams to lose more than one first-round pick in compensation, if they receive first-round picks from other teams. Again, we'll look at the Red Sox:

 

23 (from Angels -- Orlando Cabrera)

26 (from Dodgers -- Derek Lowe)

28 Cardinals (from Sox -- Edgar Renteria)

-----

76 Padres (from Sox -- David Wells)

 

All of the players involved were Class A players, and should therefore require first-round compensation.

 

Considering the gains and losses, the ideal formula would weigh out the players involved in each transaction, and assign picks accordingly. Something like:

 

23 Cardinals (Renteria)

26 Padres (Wells)

28 Red Sox (Cabrera)

------

76 Red Sox (Lowe)

 

Because of MLB Draft rules, the Sox are essentially allowed to trade their second round pick for a first rounder.

 

I can't complain too much about the Cardinals having the picks they do, seeing as how they lost two key starters (Renteria, Matheny) and brought in lesser players in return. Add in their natural picks in the first and second rounds....and that's how you get to six.

[DHonks]

looking at the Red Sox:

gained:

23 (Cabrera, Angels)

26 (Lowe, Dodgers)

42 (Pedro, compensation)

45 (Cabrera, compensation)

47 (Lowe, compensation)

57 (Pedro, from Mets)

lost:

28 (to Cards for Renteria)

76 (to Padres for Wells)

108 (to Cubs for Clement)

 

So basically the Red Sox signed Clement, Wells, and Renteria in place of Cabrera, Pedro, and Lowe, and they added three picks, higher than the ones they lost. In a system that analyzed signings, it's likely that they would say that on the whole, slightly downgraded, and might deserve a compensatory pick after the first round. At most, one compensatory pick after the first, and one after the second. But not a net gain of 3 picks. In the current system, they got two picks higher than their own 1st, 4 more higher than their previous second. If things work their way, they could have several high profile draft picks this year

[And That]

In the current system, they got two picks higher than their own 1st, 4 more higher than their previous second.

 

And that makes Theo Epstein smart.

 

New question: give me your plan for reworking the MLB draft process.

[brettac1]

Essentially it's like trading draft picks, this year's Baseball Prospectus essay on the Yankees talks about how they did that so much in recent years. Granted, they used their picks somewhat poorly, but I agree with that conclusion that it is essentially trading picks. Also, if your team loses players, I have no problem getting comp picks.

 

And that makes Theo Epstein smart.

Amen, I sometimes throw around the "G"(enius) word with him, but I just woke up.

[Dollarbill13]

Why do we even need draft compensation for losing players? If one of your stars signs with another team, you gain money to sign someone else. In most cases, a player's original team does have the opportunity to re-sign him and they opt not too.

[brewersClone]

all though i claim ignorance on how the nhl does compensatory picky, the nfl does not take away picks and the highest compensatory pick i can ever remember is the 3rd round and of course the nba does not compensate teams. I think the nfl has it right, i have no problem if baseball wants to compensate teams for loosing a player, but i think the picks should be in a lower round. I know the system was put into place so that teams like the yankees can't just take players from the royals without compensation, but whats happening is the rich is loading up on players. When there is so many rounds in the draft, i think offering a 3-5th round pick is decent compensation. Do your homework and you can still get a great player.

[gregmag]

How about prorating the award of compensatory picks based on record and/or revenue? If a team with, say, over a .525 winning percentage loses a type A, it gets nothing; .475-.525 gets only a sandwich pick; .475 and below gets sandwich plus the signing team's first rounder. I'm pulling those percentage ranges out of my butt, but figuring out how to slice the pie would be fairly easy.

 

What this boils down to is how much we care about parity. I understand the players' desire not to create a system that creates huge disincentives to signing FAs, but I would love to see a system that gives losing and/or smaller market teams a leg up in the process.

 

Greg.

[1e Corbeau]

I agree with bjk's sentiment that the system should be based more on a "net" gain/loss than individual gains/losses. The current system does reward big-time spenders for making lateral moves, such as exchanging Cabrera for Renteria (which, with the compensatory picks, becomes Cabrera & 1st Rd for Renteria & 1st Rd).

 

A more equitable system would need to take into account the net change in a team's roster.

 

If a team loses THREE Group A players and adds TWO Group A players, you receive ONE compensatory pick.

 

Teams NEVER lose a pick, UNLESS the sign a top line player from a new group distinction (something like a "super" Group A, top 5% of major leaguers or similar).

 

Teams GAIN sandwich picks equal to the net loss of players over the offseason.

 

Effect on 1st Round:

Teams signing "A " players lose their pick. The teams that lose "A " players gain picks at the end of the round.

 

Sandwich (after 1st round)

Teams receive these picks if they lose "A" players. The number is equal to the net loss of "A" players.

 

Sandwich (after 2nd)

Teams losing "B" players, equal to net loss of "B" players.

 

Sandwich (after 3rd)

Teams losing "C" players, equal to net loss of "C" players.

 

Not perfect, but seems better.

[monty57]

My biggest problem with compensatory picks is that a free agent signing should effect two teams:

 

Team A gains a free agent

Team B loses a free agent

 

To help keep "parity" in the league, Team B gets Team A's draft slot. Okay, no problems here.

 

However, by also granting a compensatory pick, every other team in the league suffers by being dropped one spot. Call it a crapshoot if you'd like, but no team in the league would gratuitously give up the 44th pick for the 45th, so there is a loss of value by being "bumped."

[dnramo]

Quote:

---

So basically the Red Sox signed Clement, Wells, and Renteria in place of Cabrera, Pedro, and Lowe, and they added three picks, higher than the ones they lost. In a system that analyzed signings, it's likely that they would say that on the whole, slightly downgraded, and might deserve a compensatory pick after the first round. At most, one compensatory pick after the first, and one after the second. But not a net gain of 3 picks. In the current system, they got two picks higher than their own 1st, 4 more higher than their previous second. If things work their way, they could have several high profile draft picks this year

---

 

I'd argue that, as an organization, that's still a net loss. The biggest compensation-related problem is that there's not enough granularity with the classification of FAs.

 

More than that, though, players need to declare for the draft and take slotted bonuses. The year-long holdout stuff is a farce. If a player wants to play baseball then let him declare and be compelled to sign for some certain amount. Perhaps as importantly, for the players who turn down the draft and go to college thinking they're going to improve their stock, spend all their time in college in baseball and then fail to improve, well, they're screwed. Few of the players who go to school in the hopes of being redrafted will graduate with a useful degree. It makes far more sense for MLB to include scholarships in its compensation for HS draftees so that the HS player can focus 100% on academics if he flames out in baseball.

 

The biggest competitive imbalance in the draft is the "signability" issue. Rich teams can buy "extra" top-5 round caliber players by drafting guys who want an extra few hundred thousand dollars. Teams like the Brewers on limited budgets are hurt because players like Pedro Alvarez (Red Sox 14th rd pick) drop way down over a few hundred k. He individually may not turn into anything, but I'd guess that 30 of the top 150 drop at least a round every year over such quibles. That collectively hurts the small market teams and benefits a select few teams with practically unlimited amateur player acquisition budgets.