The End of Compensatory Picks for Free Agents?

[JPhillips]

Just saw this on the Baseball journals. For those who won't click through, it says that MLB and the players have agreed to end compensatory picks for free agents and that teams have been notified. Its a bit of a rumor, but Newsday reported this possibility a couple of weeks ago.

As if small market teams didn't have enough trouble.


http://www.maurybrown.com/?p=333

[Swaggs]

As a Pittsburgh Pirates (don't laugh) fan, I am glad. Since salaries have skyrocketed in the last 10-12 seasons, I think it has been more of a benefit to large market teams anyway. You have to offer arbitration to players and then they have to sign with a new team to receive a compensatory pick, so it always seemed like the Pirates would fail to offer arbitration b/c they were afraid that the player might accept it rather than signing elsewhere as a FA.

It also seems like small market (re: losing) teams trade away FAs-to-be at the deadline, so a team like the Yankees or Red Sox end up getting a comp pick for half a year of a player.

[sterlingice]

The one thing it did for small market teams is that it gave them a little leverage when it was time to trade, tho: "No, I don't want your garbage for my FA-to-be that you know I can't sign, I'll just take my sandwich and 1st round pick".

SI

[JPhillips]

I think it will result in more trades for the teams on the bubble at the deadline. If there is no compensation for losing FAs then the pressure will be on GMs to get some return even if its below the value they want.

Its not a perfect system, but without a salary cap there needs to be something that helps the small market clubs. MLB is moving closer and closer to a European soccer structure where many of the teams have zero chance of ever winning and serve mostly to develop players for the rich clubs.

[CraigSca]

Does this imply they're working on a new contract already?

[stevew]

Its not a perfect system, but without a salary cap there needs to be something that helps the small market clubs. MLB is moving closer and closer to a European soccer structure where many of the teams have zero chance of ever winning and serve mostly to develop players for the rich clubs.

Once it was changed to where you had to offer arbitration to outgoing FA's in order to get compensation, this rule ceased to help the small markets anymore.

[Ksyrup]

I'm continually amazed that people still argue this "no chance" thing when so many teams have made or been close to the playoffs in the past 5 years or so. The only teams with "no chance" just happen to be the same teams that have been run into the ground by bad ownership and/or management - KC, PIT, TB, BAL, Cubs. Things ordinarily take longer in baseball to turn around unless you've got the "perfect storm" (White Sox last year, Tigers this year), precisely because draft picks don't have an immediate impact on your team. That's partially why football teams can turn it around so quickly, but baseball teams are more measured in their growth. Look at the Tigers. I'd argue going from 119 losses 3 years ago to 90-100+ wins this year beats any turn around you can come up with in the NFL.

[JPhillips]

I'll give you that you can make a one or two year playoff run if you are extremely good at drafting/developing, but the disadvantage is extreme.

The last I heard all the division leaders except Oakland were in the top half of payroll. The teams that can spend more have an advantage and eliminating rules that help small market teams assemble talent makes the advantage larger.

[Ksyrup]

I guess it depends on what you want. I don't really like the NFL's system, because I hate the incongruity of teams going from bad to good to bad again, in the span of 3 years. I hate the fact that so many Super Bowl teams have not even made the playoffs the next year. I think that ruins the continuity and history of a league when there's no rhyme or reason to what happens in any given year.

Since there are fewer playoff spots in baseball but a higher percentage of total teams are making the playoffs than in the other sports, I'm satisfied with a low payroll team getting good and having a 2-3 year run, then falling back and starting over. While I'm not thrilled to see the Yankees guaranteed a playoff spot each year, I'm not willing to throw them out of the penthouse at the risk of turning the MLB into the NFL.

And Boston's crap season this year with the second-highest payroll doesn't exactly bode well for the "if you spend you're guaranteed to win" argument, either. Hell, look at Seattle's payroll. Or the Angels. Of the top 15 payrolls, at least 9 are likely not going to make the playoffs. And of the bottom 15, I'd say only 6 teams had no shot, either in preseason predictions or based on the reality of the games played (Nationals, Brewers, Royals, Pirates, Rockies, DRays). The others have either been in contention during August, or were supposed to be better and weren't (Indians). I really don't have a problem with that.

[JPhillips]

I don't think spending guarantees that you'll win, but not spending almost guarantees that you won't win. Look at your numbers. If nine teams in the top fifteen don't make the playoffs that means six will. There are only eight playoff spots. If you go by todays standings four of the top six payrolls make he playoffs.

It just seems impossible to me to argue that the large payroll don't have a significant advantage.