Proposal to change Compensation Rules

[Flash]

Since we have already made decisions on FAs for this offseason,  I can't see this happening until the 2018 FYPD or next season's FA class.

I wholeheartedly disagree that we need to delay this change because "...we have already made decisions on FAs for this offseason."  Let's be real here.  Nobody made any sort of free agent decisions on the basis of whether they were giving up a Type A or Type B free agent.  If anything, decisions were made on the basis of economics pertaining to available cap space.  But more than that, we have to really take a good hard look at our league and realize that it has been it hard by the exodus to DynastysportsHQ--AKA Corey's new site.

Let's not kid ourselves, free agent decisions were not a high priority throughout the entire league.  I grant you that a few veterans gave it some thought, but I don't think how many draft picks they were going to get entered into the equation.  When we look at the massive amount of turnover we've had and the neglect teams have endured from absentee owners, we can get a better understanding why we can't justify a delay based on "free agent decisions". 

I'm not trying to disrespect my Co-Commish, however, let me give a brief State of the League to illustrate my counter view.

-- - OUDAN was a longtime owner, yet he became less involved after his championship season.  He is quite invested in DynastysportsHQ and finally resigned and left ProFSL late in the season.  We found a replacement for him, Draft Legends, and he seemed to have great enthusiasm.  Yet once he found out he didn't make the playoffs, he announced he was quitting after just a short stint as a GM.  We now have a long-term replacement in Ginstwin, but even though the had some productive players on expiring contracts, they became free agents out of neglect.  The Compensation Rule was not a factor in whether those players became free agents.

-- - VolsRaysBucs, like OUDAN, is invested in DynastysportsHQ and announced he would not be returning as a member of FGM late in the season.  His team was open until just recently when bur.base.ball took over as the GM.  During that lapse of ownership, there was no one to make any free agent decisions, so again, regardless of the rule, neglect was the overriding factor.

-- - MillerTime was a longtime member and developed a very competive team.  He too announced his retirement from the league and he was replaced by brandonj2262.  Again, there was no conscious decisions regarding free agency because MillerTime was leaving and brandonj2262 came in after the extension deadline.

-- - fantasyboi vanished after the waiver trading period.  He deleted his FGM Fantrax membership and seems to have left ProFSL altogether.  Rsmetana has agreed to replace him, but here again, no one was around to make any decisions on expiring contracts.

-- - Dan Wood, an original member of FGM, finished as the runner-up in this year's World Series.  He had several productive players on expiring contracts, but he resigned at the end of the season, and again, did not make any sort of conscious effort in regards to compensation for players going into free agency.  He too has fled to DynastysportsHQ, which, like the others, is his choice, but to say he thought about Type A or Type B compensation for lost free agents is simply not reality.

-- and owners are about to be replaced because neither of them have logged onto the site since late September and have not responded to my PMs regarding their continued membership.  Both of them are veterans and although Daniel signed a couple of his players to extensions, when he found out Derek Dietrich was more costly than he thought, he got upset and has since vanished.

With all this, we have a variety of first year owners. Like most newbies, they are still learning the ropes, and I'm sure if you asked them, they're still trying to figure out a variety of the rules and did not make free agent decsions based on Type A or Type B compensation.  I could be wrong, but I remember my first few seasons in FGM, I didn't post anything because I wasn't really sure what was going on.  Not an insult, just a stark reality.

Without getting too carried away and alienating anyone, what's my agenda here?  I hope you know it's to make FGM a league that is strong and appealing.  FGM has been insulted time and again with the "dinosaur" label and I believe that since Rick and I took over, we have tried to make the league more stable and long-lasting.  We improved the Trade Process, revised and clarified the Rule Book, instituted an MiLB roster that is working leaguewide, and have sought to make sure that we deal with every issue as it arises by making ourselves available.

But let's not drag our feet and perpetuate a problem we have a solution for.  We need to do all we can to make FGM a league on the cutting edge.  I have seen it happen many times in the past where we say we'll deal with something in the future and then nothing is done.  We did it last year with this very issue, and now there's a call to delay it until 2018.  Problems don't go away through avoidance, they go away when we fix them.

We don't need to wait until 2018 to do this, we can do it now, but only if more members speak up and offer their insights.  If most of you believe everything is okay as is and no change is needed, then please speak up.  If you agree with the proposed changes, then please let the league know.  This is not my league or Rick's league, it is your league so we really need your feedback.

[BHows]

So if I understand how this works the players that are currently Type A and B FAs can still be signed by their 2016 team to contracts valued at an average of the Top 125 players at their position? This assuming that they were with that team all year.
I have no issues doing this and none with starting it this year IF we can get it done in time. Free agency starts in about 6 weeks

[Flash]

So if I understand how this works the players that are currently Type A and B FAs can still be signed by their 2016 team to contracts valued at an average of the Top 125 players at their position? This assuming that they were with that team all year.
I have no issues doing this and none with starting it this year IF we can get it done in time. Free agency starts in about 6 weeks

No, that is not the case because that would circumvent the Extension Value Scale we established for our pending free agents.  Our "Qualifying Offers" are the rankings in our Extension Value Scale and the deadline to sign players to an extension has already passed.

The changes we are discussing are:

1) Only one draft pick as compensation for a Type A free agent;
2) The elimination of Type B free agents;
3) Type A compensation tied to a player who has been on a team the entire season;
4) Protection of 1st Round Picks for the top ten teams in the draft;
5) When a team loses a 1st Round pick, the team gaining the pick does not replace that team in the 1st Round.  Instead, the 1st Round is condensed and that pick becomes a part of the Compensation Round between the 1st and 2nd Rounds.  If the pick lost is protected (1-10), then the pick lost is the teams 2nd Round pick, or possibly a Compensation Round pick, whatever is higher.

[BHows]

OK. Sorry, having a hard time wrapping my head around this!

[Anthony]

We could wait, but what are some of the issues being discussed?

--Roster size?  Adding one more player so you have 26 active roster; limiting September roster sizes to 28 or 29;

--Quicker disabled list?  Activating players sooner than 15 days;

--Shorten the schedule?  Have more days off in season

--Revenue sharing?

--Domestic violence policy?

--Manipulation of service time?

There are more, and they are all viable issues for MLB.  However, for our purposes, we are concerned with the issue of Qualifying Offers.  I recently came across a summary of its differing effects in the following passage.

"REVAMPING THE QUALIFYING OFFER"

Just this past winter alone, the Dodgers are an example of the benefits and perils of literally every side of the qualifying offer: Zack Greinke declined their QO and netted them a compensation pick; Brett Anderson accepted it but injured his back in spring training and has yet to return, costing the Dodgers more than $5 million so far for no return; Howie Kendrick turned it down but found nowhere to sign and ended up coming back to the Dodgers on a two-year, $20 million deal that was a deep discount for LA on multiple levels; and Hisashi Iwakuma would have cost them their own first-round pick had he not failed a physical and thus nullified a potential contract.

In our fantasy world, we have all of these factors to a certain degree. 

--A

TBD

My specific thought was that if the MLB scraps or significantly changes their QO system, we should do the same to mimic it, and hopefully a deal is coming by Dec 1 so we would only wait a few days.

However I like your proposed changes and am all for them.

[game162]

I have no concerns with the changes being proposed...they make sense from a parity standpoint.  However, I agree with Anthony in that we can afford to wait a few more days to see what happens with the CBA.  I would prefer to wait instead of making a hasty change and then having to make more changes next year.  As long as we have 2+ weeks before FA starts to digest whatever changes we go with and build a strategy around them, I believe that should be sufficient.

[Flash]

I have no concerns with the changes being proposed...they make sense from a parity standpoint.  However, I agree with Anthony in that we can afford to wait a few more days to see what happens with the CBA.  I would prefer to wait instead of making a hasty change and then having to make more changes next year.  As long as we have 2+ weeks before FA starts to digest whatever changes we go with and build a strategy around them, I believe that should be sufficient.

Given the fact that our draft is essentially one year behind the current season, it would seem to be cogent to initiate a change where we mirror the 2016 CBA.  Regardless of the modifications to come out of the negotiations surrounding the CBA, teams will still lose a draft pick in the 2017 draft because of the Qualifying Offers made to the eight free agents tied to those offers on the current market.

In the current CBA negotiations, there is a proposal to eliminate the draft pick compensation, and thus make it a true free agency.  If such an agreement comes to fruition, then we, as a league wishing to mirror MLB, would follow suit and eliminate draft pick compensation altogether beginning in 2018.  Then without any draft pick compensation for a Type A free agents, GMs would have to fully weigh whether to utilize the Extension Values Scale or simply let their player enter free agency. 

I see this as a fluid situation where all members are aware of impending changes because they are happening in the future, some 12 to 24 months away.  This is not a hasty change.  It is something being done in conjunction with the longevity of the league.  I will reiterate, if we are going to be a league on the cutting edge, we cannot keep succumbing to the "let's wait and see" approach that has plagued this league for many years.  We want a league that is sustainable, and willing to be committed, to a framework which is based on the realities of MLB.  If we keep things "interesting", maybe we won't have to deal with the consequences of continual turnover.

[BHows]

This has been a great conversation although I wish more GMs would throw in their two cents. I say we give this until 12/6 (Customary 2 weeks for rules changes) and then put it to an official league wide vote?
As previously admitted, I misinterpreted the immediate impact on the draft. If this passes  all that will change is eliminating Type B FAs but we will potentially be shortening the 1st Rd. and certainly shorten the Comp. Rd., thus ensuring more competitive balance

[jpmanchester]

Ya I'm still ok with these changes taking effect right away as well. Seems like a good change IMO. If anything in MLB IRL changes we can always address that later.

[RyanJames5]

I've been following the entire conversation, but have more or less agreed with flash the entire way. I think it's a good change, that can be implemented right away and we can always adjust accordingly if things change again in the MLB.