ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Topic started by: papps on November 14, 2015, 01:59:34 PM
-
Shouldn't the type B compensation draft picks come after the 2nd round? I had thought the Type A come after the first round and Type B comes after the 2nd.
-
Shouldn't the type B compensation draft picks come after the 2nd round? I had thought the Type A come after the first round and Type B comes after the 2nd.
We have always had the one Compensatory Round but that is a very good point Chris. I don't completely understand how MLB arrives at their compensation but I do know that they usually(always?) have two Comp. rounds.
If we propose to emulate MLB, this may be something we would want to look into. Thanks for bringing it up
-
I agree with Papps, I think the MLB has the "B" after round 2.
-
I'm not exactly sure how it works either but I really appreciate us looking into it for next year. Many thanks for all the hard work you put into this league!!! :toth: :toth:
The first concern that I would have is that most Type "B" FAs are RP. We have already limited them to the Top 12. Would placing them after Rd.2 de-value them too much?
-
Good point, it possibly could.
-
Definitely a good point. Something we can discuss for next year. :thumbsup:
-
Shouldn't the type B compensation draft picks come after the 2nd round? I had thought the Type A come after the first round and Type B comes after the 2nd.
Now that MLB has adopted the concept of teams making "Qualifying Offers" to prospective Free Agents, Type A and Type B designations are gone. Now, when a player reaches free agency, the team that is going to lose him can offer a qualifying offer that is the average of the previous season's top 125 salaries. This year it was $15.8m for one year. The process changed, and for the first time in it's four year existence, three players accepted qualifying offers: Colby Rasmus, Brett Anderson, and Matt Wieters.
Instead of qualifying offers (QO), we offer a ranked extension scale, however, if we are to mirror MLB, some changes in our draft would need to happen.
*** Top 10 first round picks are protected in MLB, in FGM we protect the top 15 (I could be mistaken).
*** Under the new MLB CBA, the team signing a QO, loses a first round pick if it's 11-30. If it's 1-10, they don't give up their 1st round pick, but the next pick after that--which could be the sandwich pick I'll allude to in a bit--or a Round 2 pick, whichever comes first.
*** The team losing a QO player does not get the 1st Round pick of the team that signed their free agent player, instead they get a "sandwich pick" at the end of the first round (dependent upon the draft slot of the team from which the player comes).
*** Teams losing free agents do not get two picks for a Type A and one pick for a Type B because those designations are gone. Instead, they get "one pick" for each QO player lost in the "sandwich round" that follows the first round.
*** This year, MLB also adopted a rule that a player who is traded during the season before his free agency does not qualify as a QO player. Therefore, a team can no longer trade for a player during the season and be compensated with a draft pick if he signs with another team. For example, if applied to FGM, I traded from Brock Holt during the 2015 season. Right now, he qualifies as a Type A or a QO player because he was a top 20 OF. Under new MLB rules, my team, the Giants, would not get a draft pick if he is signed by another team during our Free Agent period because he was gained via trade during the 2015 season. It basically prohibits compensation for "rental players".
Right now, I think we give up way too much compensation for players lost to free agency and it might be time to change to what MLB has adopted. This year, we had 42 compensatory picks between 1:15 and 2:1, and I think that is whacked. :doh:
-
Maybe be just get rid of "B"
-
Not a fan of the comp picks. As a rebuilding team and only a 20 man minors the comp picks incredibly diminish my ability to draft and retain talent.
-
Not a fan of the comp picks. As a rebuilding team and only a 20 man minors the comp picks incredibly diminish my ability to draft and retain talent.
We are trying to emulate MLB as closely as possible so doing away with Comp picks is not realistic. A large portion of ours are RP so limiting them to twelve will go a long way toward rectifying the situation. Witness the fact that there were 36 Comp picks this year as opposed to 17 for next year's FYPD.
I like the idea of using the Qualifying Offer adopted by MLB. I think it's something we need to look into
-
The problem with qualifying offers is we are not negotiating with agents but ourselves. So we can pretty much say that every pending FA rejected the qualifying offer so I get compensation? I don't think that will work. For fantasy purposes I think the type A and type B is fine. I just think that type B picks come after the second round.
-
The problem with qualifying offers is we are not negotiating with agents but ourselves. So we can pretty much say that every pending FA rejected the qualifying offer so I get compensation? I don't think that will work. For fantasy purposes I think the type A and type B is fine. I just think that type B picks come after the second round.
True, but the QO would be an average from our league not MLB. i can't help but think that I may have been able to resign Miggy at a better rate under QO rules. I could be wrong, I'd have to research it further.
-
The problem with qualifying offers is we are not negotiating with agents but ourselves. So we can pretty much say that every pending FA rejected the qualifying offer so I get compensation? I don't think that will work. For fantasy purposes I think the type A and type B is fine. I just think that type B picks come after the second round.
Our use of Extension Values is our alternative to Qualifying Offers. If we choose not to sign an impending Free Agent to an extension we are essentially declaring that our Qualifying Offer is being declined by our Free Agent. I am not proposing the adoption of the QO's because it would make our Extension Value Scale obselete--and while it might allow for a lower extension for someone like Miguel Cabrera, it would inflate the contracts of the lower level free agents that we sign based on our Extension Value Scale.
The change would come in the compensation awarded. Instead of awarding two picks for the loss of a Type A and one pick for a Type B free agent, we would only be awarding one pick for the loss of a Type A Free Agent and no picks for a Type B Free Agent. With that, the pick would be in a Sandwich Round between the 1st and 2nd Rounds, with 1-15 1st round picks still being protected (and a sandwich pick awarded for 1-15) and the loss of a 1st Round pick. No more getting two or more 1st round picks. The team signing a Type A Free Agent loses their 1st round pick but it isn't given to the team from whom they signed their free agent. With that, if a Type A player is received in a trade during the season, there is no compensation.
Under our present system, a rebuilding team, with limited cap, usually loses in the process. Look at the present draft. rebuilding teams like :SD:, :PIT:, :TOR:, :WAS: and :ARZ: get one pick in the first 66 players drafted because of our Compensation Rules. I know that we can all work the system to our advantage, and I'm not criticizing those who have done so to improve their teams, but right now, there are 28 extra picks awarded because of our rules and I really think that it's time to revamp things to make it more in line with what MLB is doing.
-
I totally agree with your last post Flash! :toast:
-
Our use of Extension Values is our alternative to Qualifying Offers. If we choose not to sign an impending Free Agent to an extension we are essentially declaring that our Qualifying Offer is being declined by our Free Agent. I am not proposing the adoption of the QO's because it would make our Extension Value Scale obselete--and while it might allow for a lower extension for someone like Miguel Cabrera, it would inflate the contracts of the lower level free agents that we sign based on our Extension Value Scale.
The change would come in the compensation awarded. Instead of awarding two picks for the loss of a Type A and one pick for a Type B free agent, we would only be awarding one pick for the loss of a Type A Free Agent and no picks for a Type B Free Agent. With that, the pick would be in a Sandwich Round between the 1st and 2nd Rounds, with 1-15 1st round picks still being protected (and a sandwich pick awarded for 1-15) and the loss of a 1st Round pick. No more getting two or more 1st round picks. The team signing a Type A Free Agent loses their 1st round pick but it isn't given to the team from whom they signed their free agent. With that, if a Type A player is received in a trade during the season, there is no compensation.
Under our present system, a rebuilding team, with limited cap, usually loses in the process. Look at the present draft. rebuilding teams like :SD:, :PIT:, :TOR:, :WAS: and :ARZ: get one pick in the first 66 players drafted because of our Compensation Rules. I know that we can all work the system to our advantage, and I'm not criticizing those who have done so to improve their teams, but right now, there are 28 extra picks awarded because of our rules and I really think that it's time to revamp things to make it more in line with what MLB is doing.
It's going to take quite a bit of study. I think we are on the right track by limiting our Restricted RP to 12. We have already taken our Comp.Rd. from 36 this year to 17 next year. Brings it much more in line.
My first inclination is to place the Type A between the 1st and 2nd rounds and the Type B between the 2nd and 3rd. My concern in doing this is that we would be lowering the value of RP too much. This is already a "Hitter friendly" league, we don't want to make RPs obsolete.
Also, for the sake of realism, I think the QO option has some merit but perhaps so does baby steps toward that goal.
Whatever we end up with will be better than what we have and besides, it makes for good conversation
-
I do think extension values are too much, but oh well. I dont wana devalue RP more than they are already. Pitchers usually get a bad name in here cause they make way less that hitters. I wish we could make them more valuable, but it is out of the question.
-
I do think extension values are too much, but oh well. I dont wana devalue RP more than they are already. Pitchers usually get a bad name in here cause they make way less that hitters. I wish we could make them more valuable, but it is out of the question.
Our 2016 extension values have actually dropped because they reflect the market values of the players on our rosters.
-
:iatp:
-
We are trying to emulate MLB as closely as possible so doing away with Comp picks is not realistic. A large portion of ours are RP so limiting them to twelve will go a long way toward rectifying the situation. Witness the fact that there were 36 Comp picks this year as opposed to 17 for next year's FYPD.
I like the idea of using the Qualifying Offer adopted by MLB. I think it's something we need to look into
You're emulating the one part (the draft) but not the part (the size of the minor league system) that enables the first part to do its job.
-
2016 Comp Eligible (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gLjVJ2uIXrl7c9YJx0hpbSPpB2Ym0iObBDXynk-3RKU/edit#gid=0)
Listed above are the compensation eligible Free Agents for 2016.
As you can see, by limiting the number of eligible RP's, we have substantially reduced the Comp Round. Personally, I think this is much more realistic.
(There is still a SP,RP issue. In this class Travis Wood is comp eligible but Aroldis Chapman isn't. That's separate problem we REALLY need to look into.)
Based on the above list I would go along with keeping Type A comp between Rounds 1 & 2 and moving Type B between Rounds 2 & 3 but that's off the top of my head. I think it is more in line with MLB and it would also address the issues Houston brought up
-
I agree with those we need to make the league as real as possible and bhows idea seems to work the best. My question is what about looking into expanding the minor league roster and more spots to it realistly I think we should add 5 spots a year to it. There are so many good players in minors it would make the minors so much better.
-
I agree with adding 5 spots to minors each season
-
Item VI B-2.0 Line 8 (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=234681.0)