Jump to content

Visit Rotoworld.comRotoworld Forums  
Rotoworld: MLB | NFL | NBA | NHL | NASCAR | CFB
Sports Talk Blogs: PFT | HBT | PBT | CFT | PHT
  Visit NBCSports.com

- - - - -

MLB draft compensationFree agent draft compensation


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
12 replies to this topic

#1 UntimelyBoner

UntimelyBoner

    Double-A

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:26 PM

Need some clarification regarding draft compensation in MLB.  I know the market for Bourn (until recently) was slow and same for Lohse, because the team that signs the FA will have to lose their first round pick in the upcoming draft.

I remember a few years ago the Red Sox picked up Felipe Lopez, and the plan was to let him sign elsewhere and pick up a first rounder.  Well, no one signed him until Tampa Bay stepped in and signed him to a minor league deal to avoid the compensation.

Would something like this work for Bourn or Lohse?  Couldn't a team sign the player to a "minor league" deal?  The player would still get a guaranteed $45+ million deal and would obviously never be a candidate to be sent back to the minors.  And even if they were, the risk seems to be worth it for the extra cash they would receive.  Carlos Silva had no draft compensation a few years back and ended up getting a massive contract because of it.  Anyone have any insight on this?

#2 parrothead

parrothead

    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,596 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:50 PM

View PostUntimelyBoner, on 12 February 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Need some clarification regarding draft compensation in MLB.  I know the market for Bourn (until recently) was slow and same for Lohse, because the team that signs the FA will have to lose their first round pick in the upcoming draft.

I remember a few years ago the Red Sox picked up Felipe Lopez, and the plan was to let him sign elsewhere and pick up a first rounder.  Well, no one signed him until Tampa Bay stepped in and signed him to a minor league deal to avoid the compensation.

Would something like this work for Bourn or Lohse?  Couldn't a team sign the player to a "minor league" deal?  The player would still get a guaranteed $45+ million deal and would obviously never be a candidate to be sent back to the minors.  And even if they were, the risk seems to be worth it for the extra cash they would receive.  Carlos Silva had no draft compensation a few years back and ended up getting a massive contract because of it.  Anyone have any insight on this?
I read an article on this not too long ago, I thought the "penalty" stayed on all the way until the draft.  Cleveland is interesting because it cant lose its 1st round pick (top 10) and now it has signed two of the free agents costing compensation (Bourne and Swish).

I think its smart for a couple reasons:
1. Many of the players remaning are probably overvalued, they arent elite and in the past I think one of the reasons teams have found themselves in repeated cycles of losing is the combination of poor drafts, then over compensating for the lack of cheap homegrown talent with overpaid mid road free agents.  I remember 5-6 years back when Royals signed Gil Meche and Jose Guillen to like a combined annual salary of $25-30 Million and I just knew it wasnt going to end well.

2. Couple teams figuring out No.1 with I think a renewed value by a lot of teams on their draft picks and you get the situation we have now.  Giants have won 2/3 World Series with 1st round picks contributing like Posey, MadBum, Lincecum, etc.  this was a major shift in thinking where I can remember them signing Michael Tucker intentionally one day early so that they would forfeit their 1st round pick because they didnt want to spend money on picks because they thought it was a crapshoot.
Seems everybody's jogging or heavy into health s?&t, don't tell me that I otta get rolfed, cause I love Cajun martinis and playing afternoon golf-JB from we are the people are parents warned us about

#3 RespectMyAuthority

RespectMyAuthority

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,156 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:54 PM

The whole situation really benefits the good teams -- it makes it hard for teams in the mid-tier to sign compensation FA's because they have to give up better picks to sign the players.  The whole system is jacked up, they need to figure out a different way to do it.  The Mets got royally screwed while waiting on MLB to rule on their grievance, while in the meantime Cleveland swooped in and gave Bourn something and Bourn decided he couldn't wait on the Mets any longer.

#4 UntimelyBoner

UntimelyBoner

    Double-A

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:57 PM

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it is what happened with Felipe Lopez.  I checked and Tampa signed him on Feb 2nd, so it was well before the draft.  The only reason this sticks in my brain is because I am a Sox fan and remembered when it happened.

I know the top 10 picks are protected since the mets were number 11 and were seeking an exemption to sign Bourn, but if a top 20 team wanted to keep their pick and skirt the rules, I'm thinking this could be a way around it.  But if it is, I'm sure someone would have already done it by now.

#5 RespectMyAuthority

RespectMyAuthority

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,156 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 04:19 PM

The Mets situation was a little unique and it's something that probably needs to be tightened up in the rules.

The rule stats any team drafting in the Top 10 doesn't have to forfeit their pick -- the Mets finished with the 10th worst record in baseball in 2012, so they should've had the 10th pick, however since Pittsburgh was unable to sign Mark Appel from Stanford with the 2012 #8 pick, they were given a compensatory pick at #9 for 2013, pushing the Mets back to #11.  I think the Mets had all the beef in the world to be upset and deserved to be granted a waiver in this situation because they should be picking 10th, not their fault Pittsburgh gambled on a hard to sign guy last year.  If the Mets were 11th without the Appel/Pirates situation, I'd say "Tough Luck, no waiver on the exception", but there's more going on here than the clear cut & dry wording of the rule.

#6 parrothead

parrothead

    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,596 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 04:40 PM

View PostUntimelyBoner, on 12 February 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it is what happened with Felipe Lopez.  I checked and Tampa signed him on Feb 2nd, so it was well before the draft.  The only reason this sticks in my brain is because I am a Sox fan and remembered when it happened.

I know the top 10 picks are protected since the mets were number 11 and were seeking an exemption to sign Bourn, but if a top 20 team wanted to keep their pick and skirt the rules, I'm thinking this could be a way around it.  But if it is, I'm sure someone would have already done it by now.
I googled that situation.  Felipe Lopez was a "Type B" Free Agent and they had a loophole back then if you signed a minor league contract.  They got rid of the Type Free Agents I think in the new compensation rules.  I think its all based on qualifying offers.
Seems everybody's jogging or heavy into health s?&t, don't tell me that I otta get rolfed, cause I love Cajun martinis and playing afternoon golf-JB from we are the people are parents warned us about

#7 JFS171

JFS171

    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,998 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 05:38 PM

As a Braves fan I was pretty peeved to see him sign with Cleveland, considering ATL forfieted their pick (in the high 20s) to sign BJ Upton with the understanding that they would be receiving a first rounder once Bourn signed with someone.

Instead, ATL is getting a pick around 70th overall now (Cleveland's competitive balance pick) since the Yankees received the Indians 2nd rounder as compensation for Swisher, and the first is top-10 protected.

ATL gets screwed out of a first rounder as a result.  I'd have rather the Mets signed him, won their greivance, and then forfeited the 10th pick in the 2nd to ATL.

The system is flawed - extremely so, which is kind of sad considering the CBA is pretty new to be so lacking on a main component (free agency).

Edited by JFS171, 12 February 2013 - 05:39 PM.


#8 baltimore_boy

baltimore_boy

    Hall of Famer

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,695 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 05:53 PM

View PostRespectMyAuthority, on 12 February 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

The Mets situation was a little unique and it's something that probably needs to be tightened up in the rules.

The rule stats any team drafting in the Top 10 doesn't have to forfeit their pick -- the Mets finished with the 10th worst record in baseball in 2012, so they should've had the 10th pick, however since Pittsburgh was unable to sign Mark Appel from Stanford with the 2012 #8 pick, they were given a compensatory pick at #9 for 2013, pushing the Mets back to #11.  I think the Mets had all the beef in the world to be upset and deserved to be granted a waiver in this situation because they should be picking 10th, not their fault Pittsburgh gambled on a hard to sign guy last year.  If the Mets were 11th without the Appel/Pirates situation, I'd say "Tough Luck, no waiver on the exception", but there's more going on here than the clear cut & dry wording of the rule.

This is why they should at least make it clear the teams that wouldn't have to give up their picks before the start of free agency. If they do that then the Mets don't have to sit around waiting on someone to make a decision while Cleveland comes in to sign Bourn. At least then the rules would be clearer, but I do agree with others here that the system is flawed.
Bring back Ray!

#9 parrothead

parrothead

    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,596 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:11 PM

Yeah, thats crap.  The point is to give the 10 worst teams from last year a chance to sign free agents without giving up a top pick, Mets were one of worst teams...should be slam dunk case closed.
Seems everybody's jogging or heavy into health s?&t, don't tell me that I otta get rolfed, cause I love Cajun martinis and playing afternoon golf-JB from we are the people are parents warned us about

#10 CM52

CM52

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 270 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:08 AM

View PostJFS171, on 12 February 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

As a Braves fan I was pretty peeved to see him sign with Cleveland, considering ATL forfieted their pick (in the high 20s) to sign BJ Upton with the understanding that they would be receiving a first rounder once Bourn signed with someone.

Instead, ATL is getting a pick around 70th overall now (Cleveland's competitive balance pick) since the Yankees received the Indians 2nd rounder as compensation for Swisher, and the first is top-10 protected.

ATL gets screwed out of a first rounder as a result.  I'd have rather the Mets signed him, won their greivance, and then forfeited the 10th pick in the 2nd to ATL.

The system is flawed - extremely so, which is kind of sad considering the CBA is pretty new to be so lacking on a main component (free agency).

ATL doesn't get screwed.  They get a sandwich pick between the first and second rounds regardless of who signed Bourn.  They're probably happier that he's out of the division.

Edited by CM52, 13 February 2013 - 09:14 AM.


#11 JFS171

JFS171

    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,998 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:49 AM

You're exactly right - I misinterpreted the rules.

When you lose a FA due to a qualifying offer, you don't receive that team's pick.  You receive a sanwich round pick.  So while the Mets argued they should have been allowed to keep their 11th overall pick and forfeit their second rounder, it wouldn't have mattered to ATL.  ATL was always getting a sandwich round pick.

Thanks for mentioning that - forced me to do a little more research.

#12 UntimelyBoner

UntimelyBoner

    Double-A

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:17 AM

Here is some more info regarding Felipe Lopez's deal
http://hardballtalk....eague-contract/

#13 Slatykamora

Slatykamora

    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,653 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:35 AM

View PostRespectMyAuthority, on 12 February 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

The Mets situation was a little unique and it's something that probably needs to be tightened up in the rules.

The rule stats any team drafting in the Top 10 doesn't have to forfeit their pick -- the Mets finished with the 10th worst record in baseball in 2012, so they should've had the 10th pick, however since Pittsburgh was unable to sign Mark Appel from Stanford with the 2012 #8 pick, they were given a compensatory pick at #9 for 2013, pushing the Mets back to #11. I think the Mets had all the beef in the world to be upset and deserved to be granted a waiver in this situation because they should be picking 10th, not their fault Pittsburgh gambled on a hard to sign guy last year.  If the Mets were 11th without the Appel/Pirates situation, I'd say "Tough Luck, no waiver on the exception", but there's more going on here than the clear cut & dry wording of the rule.

Its unfair in both ways. Clearly its being defined by the top 10 picks and NOT top 10 worst teams. The no 11 pick does not have anymore value for the Met's than it would for the M's.

Not sure how you can say the Mets have gripe, but the M's who ended a 75 win team who ended the season on a 2 game win streak are really all that more justified than a Mets a 74 win team who lost 4 of their last 5.. Neither team was anywhere close to playoff contention.. 1 win in a 162 game season suddenly makes them justified?

Can't blame the Pirates for taking a chance on Appel IMO...Guys not signing in the top 10 happens. Appel was a known risk, but that's not always the case..