New draft pick compensation for losing restricted free agent

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

Here is an idea for improving draft pick compensation.

- If you sign a player in RFA you forfeit your 2nd round pick. If you sign 2 players you forfeit your 2nd and 3rd round picks. (Just as in the past)

- For every player a team loses to another team in RFA, the losing team will get a supplemental draft pick.

- The supplemental picks will be in between the first and second round.

- The order of supplemental picks will be based on AAS of the contracts.



For example at the beginning of this year:

Orioles won A. Ramirez from Rays for 8.0 AAS
Giants won J. Ellsbury from Yankees 22.86 AAS
Giants won R. Zimmerman from Orioles 17.8 AAS
Rays won E. Andrus from Braves 18 AAS
Mets won C. Headley from Phillies 14.05 AAS
Angels won D. Robertson from Dbacks 7.2 AAS

So the Yankees would have had the first supplemental pick followed by Braves, Orioles, Phillies, Rays, Dbacks.

The Giants forfeited both 2nd and 3rd round picks and the Orioles, Rays, Mets, & Angels all forfeited their 2nd round picks.


Please respond to this thread as in favor or against the idea, please include comments, alternative ideas, and/or constructive criticism.

[Deleted]

in favor...I like the idea, I've lost a ton of RFA's because of big bids and it really sucks losing a big piece for a 3rd rd pick. This would ease that sting a little.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

So the big difference is the creation of the supp round instead of just taking over the forfeited pick? If that is the case, I am all for it. Plus more RL too.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

So teams wouldn't also gain the signing team's pick, but rather a pick in the supplemental round?

Also, what do we think about a second supplemental round at the end of the draft, potentially picks for teams who lose non-RFA players who sign large AAS deals?

[Padres GM (Amy)]

I agree w the proposed change

[Rays GM (Donavan)]

I agree that the supplemental round makes sense.

So if you lose 2 players in RFA you would get 2 supplemental round picks slotted between rounds 1 & 2 based on AAS.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

The teams with the players have the option of matching the contract and keeping the player. Why allow them a 2nd round pick and now a 1.5 round pick as compensation to NOT resign a player?

just not sure of the point unless its to give another pick to teams who had a great player to now have 2 chances at getting another great player to make them feel better after losing a great player.. just because they don't have the balls to match the contract, no matter how bad, that's what happens in MLB..tough. Re sign the player if you want him or get a 2nd round pick...

no point in this rule change, it would only benefit high end teams who are letting high end players go and give another small advantage to the teams with more better players and work against the low end teams.

Just look at examples used above, more successful teams would have got the advantage, not unsuccessful teams

I vote no.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I'd vote yes on this one. It does, as I see it, benefit the small market teams in that they gain additional value when a players contract offer goes too high for their budget as may well be the case in RFA bidding. If the bid is low enough, they just keep the player. If too high, they get additional compensation for the player under this plan.

I'd also point out that from what I've seen many teams simply engineer a trade for the player once the price has been set by RFA bidding and get max value out of the resulting trade. Often teams are able to get very good deals at this point without the risk of the Franchise tag. Once the RFA bids are in, it's wheel and deal time. The team that places the highest bid rarely gets the player unless the salary offer is ridiculously high.

I'm not sure how often it will be used but I like this one and vote yes.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Sept 16, 2014 19:15:26 GMT -8 Former Twins GM (Robin) said:

It does, as I see it, benefit the small market teams in that they gain additional value when a players contract offer goes too high for their budget as may well be the case in RFA bidding. If the bid is low enough, they just keep the player. If too high, they get additional compensation for the player under this plan.

your half right, it benefits small market AND large market teams. Feel free to look at the examples used. Let me know on all of them why it would make sense...it wouldn't benefit 1 small market team...just a change to make a change.

where it matters is it hurts weak teams and is an advantage to strong teams, no matter the market. Strong teams just get an extra player for every good FA they let go. Weak teams don't have as many good FA's and won't get as many "supplemental" picks.

Phillies
Yankees
Orioles
Braves
Dbacks
Rays

all should not get an extra pick to feel better, match the offer, not one example supports this as a reasonable rule change and definitely not to improve "small market teams"...sounds a bit too Republican, lol.

[Mariners GM (Nick J)]

Didn't think that I would have something to say on this one, but I agree with Mike. I think I have to vote no.

Like Mike said, the teams that are going to have most of the big name free agents are going to be the teams that were in contention this year because they traded for need now and werent as concerned about long-term as the small market teams. The only way that I see this helping out small market teams is that it gives the large market teams better prospects to trade with the small market teams

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

The value of a pick in the supplemental round surely doesn't reach that of the player lost in free agency. Smaller market teams in theory should benefit more since they have more restricted tags available to them.

On another note, what about adding the wrinkle of RFAs receiving a qualifying offer of say 1 year, $10M. Sometimes teams get unrealistic bargains when others don't bid on players because of the draft picks attached. If teams don't bid on RFAs, they then have the player on that deal.

What do we think about also removing the loss of draft picks when signing RFAs? We will have more people bidding on players, while the teams that lose players will still get the supplemental pick.

Just throwing ideas out there.

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

Remember, we will not have small market teams and big market teams in two years.


The reason this idea came up was because of what happened to the Orioles last season. He lost R. Zimmerman to RFA for 17.8 AAS and ended up with the Giants 3rd round pick. While the Phillies got the Mets second round pick for not matching a guy with a 14.05 AAS, the Rays got a second round pick for not matching a guy at 8.0 AAS, & the Dbacks also got a second round pick for not matching a guy at 7.2 AAS. Since the Giants won two free agents the Orioles had to take a third round pick.

In no way shape or form is any pick equal in value to a player already producing in the majors.

This is simply lining up the compensation by comparing all players contracts signed in the same RFA market.



Orioles won A. Ramirez from Rays for 8.0 AAS
Giants won J. Ellsbury from Yankees 22.86 AAS
Giants won R. Zimmerman from Orioles 17.8 AAS
Rays won E. Andrus from Braves 18 AAS
Mets won C. Headley from Phillies 14.05 AAS
Angels won D. Robertson from Dbacks 7.2 AAS


By the way, I will not and have not ever made a change in rules "just to make a change".

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I agree with Angels and Mariners that large market teams will benefit as well, that's clearly true. The thing is there aren't going to be any more large market teams soon. Payroll equality is coming. This is about selling teams and buying teams. Selling teams get more value from this amendment in my opinion, facilitating rebuild. Buying teams, nominally contenders still take on all the risk of the large contract for an established player.

I don't like the qualifying offer idea, realistic as it is, mostly because I don't like it in real baseball. I'd keep the loss of draft picks as it is more cost for the buying team.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Sept 17, 2014 5:01:04 GMT -8 Reds GM (Pat H.) said:

Remember, we will not have small market teams and big market teams in two years.


The reason this idea came up was because of what happened to the Orioles last season. He lost R. Zimmerman to RFA for 17.8 AAS and ended up with the Giants 3rd round pick. While the Phillies got the Mets second round pick for not matching a guy with a 14.05 AAS, the Rays got a second round pick for not matching a guy at 8.0 AAS, & the Dbacks also got a second round pick for not matching a guy at 7.2 AAS. Since the Giants won two free agents the Orioles had to take a third round pick.

In no way shape or form is any pick equal in value to a player already producing in the majors.

This is simply lining up the compensation by comparing all players contracts signed in the same RFA market.



Orioles won A. Ramirez from Rays for 8.0 AAS
Giants won J. Ellsbury from Yankees 22.86 AAS
Giants won R. Zimmerman from Orioles 17.8 AAS
Rays won E. Andrus from Braves 18 AAS
Mets won C. Headley from Phillies 14.05 AAS
Angels won D. Robertson from Dbacks 7.2 AAS


By the way, I will not and have not ever made a change in rules "just to make a change".

This.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

so, this proposed rule change is actually being made because 1(one) team lost/gave away 2 players, that they could have signed either one of them, and instead got a 2nd and 3rd round picks.

and now you want to add a 1.5 round pick because that 1 team didn't get 2 second round picks.

"By the way, I will not and have not ever made a change in rules "just to make a change" I am glad you said that, sums this one up then.

[Giants GM (Griffin)]

I'll just add this as one of the team's involved in this from last offseason. I did definitely take into account the loss of a 3rd round pick only for the second player signed, so I bid higher on the second player (and first player slightly) because the cost per bid was somewhat lower by signing 2 players, if that makes sense.

Not saying I would change the current system, just adding some perspective from the team signing some of the free agents.

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

NO. Read the post carefully.

The Orioles only refused to match 1(One) player and let him go and the Orioles got the Giants third round pick.

While all of the other teams refused to match 1(One) player and all of them got second round picks.

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

I see this proposal as flattening the return for RFAs. It is saying that it does not matter what team signs your player the compensation is determined by the order that the league has valued the player by how much they paid them. With the convergence of salary cap and tags over the next few years I don't see a competitive advantage gain by certain teams here. There will certainly be a chance at value here, but given the even footing the trade market and contracts should compensate on their own.

I am in favor of this proposal.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Sept 18, 2014 4:57:37 GMT -8 Reds GM (Pat H.) said:

NO. Read the post carefully.

The Orioles only refused to match 1(One) player and let him go and the Orioles got the Giants third round pick.

While all of the other teams refused to match 1(One) player and all of them got second round picks.

I bow out, count my vote with the majority on this significant rule change.

[Rays GM (Donavan)]

Just to clarify. I agree with the supplemental round between rounds 1 & 2 for compensation picks for lost RFA's.

Does the team that won the RFA still lose a draft pick? Or does the draft just increase in length (ie. 3 rounds of 30 picks, plus supplemental round).

I see no reason for the team winning the RFA, and agreeing to pay the $ to also lose a draft pick.