|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Jun 25, 2014 21:23:48 GMT -5
Submitted by San Diego Padres:
"I propose we consider turning off FA compensation. That would take care of the trading draft picks and signing comp eligible free agents. I also don't see a huge value in the compensation. Top tier talent is not available in the supplemental round. In my opinion the value of the compensation that the team gets is not worth the hassle of managing draft pick trading conflicts."
ALL DISCUSSION TOPICS OPEN THROUGH SUNDAY NIGHT, JULY 6th.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 9:08:53 GMT -5
What problem are we trying to solve? The problem (that virtually never happens) of teams signing FAs for a second round pick as they have already traded away their first rounder. It also solves the problem (that has happened) of a team signing a comp eligible player after having already made their pick on the boards.
What harm could this do? It removes compensation for teams losing FAs. This is a bigger deal for smaller market teams who may not be able to afford to keep FAs, and therefore lose them for nothing.
Knock-ons? None with this, it is very simple.
There are advantages here. It is very simple, no confusion, no possible knock-ons. In reality, the supplemental picks are not worth much, so the "losing" team does not lose much. Additionally, PBL is swimming with spare cash, it is hard to think of a time teams were genuinely priced out of signing extensions - in part to OOTPs woeful portrayal of player demands in extensions - it is always easy to sign team friendly extensions. If a team is looking like it could lose a comp eligible player to FA, they can trade them away for (likely) more than a supplemental pick is worth.
It is definitely a better solution than just banning certain teams from going after FAs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 0:03:50 GMT -5
Definitely against this one - even if supplemental picks aren't worth much it is a satisfying piece of compensation for smaller market teams when you get one.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Jul 1, 2014 17:53:28 GMT -5
100% against this one.
I would propose this actually:
A team that trades away a 1st round pick and then signs a comp eligible player loses a 1st round pick the next year. EDIT: Just read the other propasal if this rule, so I should probably post the above in there.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Jul 1, 2014 21:15:16 GMT -5
I don't think that the compensation coming to a team for losing a FA is a big deal. Pretty weak picks by that time in recent years. And if this is the only way we can get approval to close the loopholes that can be exploited to game the system, then I will be in favor of this. Whatever gets that job done.
Tim / KC
|
|
|
Post by Nick_BrewersGM on Jul 1, 2014 21:22:50 GMT -5
i like pick compesation! big money teams have such an advantage and little teams could get alittle boost with these picks even though they arent really good picks
|
|