Scott Boras - compensation rules need to change

[G-Snarls]

In an interview with Peter Gammons, Scott Boras expressed his confidence that Stephen Drew and Kendrys Morales will find good contracts with teams that will put more value on their contributions than the value of (possibly second- or third-round) draft picks. With that said, Boras also believes the free agent system needs to be changed to give players more freedom and to encourage teams to spend. “We should be doing everything possible to try to get smaller market teams the necessary veteran leadership to contend,” Boras said. His suggestions include banning qualifying offers for players over 30 years old, and a monetary compensation system for teams who lose free agents under age-30 that the clubs can re-invest in signings or draft spending.

 

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-scott-boras-and-his-vision-for-the-future-of-baseball/

[Laika]

There shouldn't even be any compensation systems. Misinformed socialism failures. Well, the implemented ones surely have been.

 

The old system: Better teams had better players, so they ended up having more free agents ranked as Type A or B. The richer/better teams got even richer. The only way for mid/small market teams to benefit from the old system was to "game" it heavily.

 

The new system: The qualifying offer system kind of defeats the whole purpose of aiding team that can't afford to keep good free agents. The richer teams can more comfortably offer free agents an expensive QO - smaller market teams can't take the risk to the same degree, especially with borderline players. We also have the same problem as the old system in that better teams have more QO worthy players, so we end up with the better teams getting more compensation picks. Rich still get richer.

 

Solution: Get rid of the qualifying offer system. Tie free agent compensation to what the players end up signing for, and scale the value of the compensation by several factors including: The price the free agent ends up getting, the losing team's payroll last year, the losing team's record last year, the signing team's record last year, the signing team's payroll last year.

 

So if free agent John Doe gets a contract above or equal to X total dollars, then the signing team gives up a pick according to those ^ criteria, and the losing team gets a pick according to those ^ criteria.

 

If the free agent gets a higher contract, then the surrendered/compensatory picks should both be of higher value.

If the losing team's payroll and record were lower last season, then the compensatory picks should be of higher value.

If the signing team's payroll and record were higher last year, then the surrendered picks should be of higher value.

 

I don't really think it's that complicated. A scaled and more thoughtful compensation system would help all parties. You wouldn't get the market freeze on fringe comp guys like Morales, Cruz, Santana, etc. because the scaled compensation for them would be pretty small, assuming they don't get large contracts. There's also an effort in here to help a s*** poor team that can't afford to keep a star more than help a good rich team that chooses to let a star walk.

[Abomination]

In an interview with Peter Gammons, Scott Boras expressed his confidence that Stephen Drew and Kendrys Morales will find good contracts with teams that will put more value on their contributions than the value of (possibly second- or third-round) draft picks. With that said, Boras also believes the free agent system needs to be changed to give players more freedom and to encourage teams to spend. “We should be doing everything possible to try to get smaller market teams the necessary veteran leadership to contend,” Boras said. His suggestions include banning qualifying offers for players over 30 years old, and a monetary compensation system for teams who lose free agents under age-30 that the clubs can re-invest in signings or draft spending.

 

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-scott-boras-and-his-vision-for-the-future-of-baseball/

 

It's actually quite an interesting article, and I kind of like his suggestions in it provided there's a way to guarantee the "compensation fee" didn't just go into the owner's pockets as extra profit. Perhaps teams losing "prime free agents" (such as Price will be) could also get extra cap space in the international draft or something.

[G-Snarls]

It is a good read

 

And I agree totally the system is messed up and needs drastic changes

[KingKat]

I say eliminate compensation all together. It just makes the rich richer. I would say the solution is allowing trading of all draft picks so a small market team can trade their star before free agency for picks.

 

That's a good suggestion but my number one change to the rules would be to modify the Super Two. Make the cutoff a set date and make if fairly late in the season so there's more incentive to break camp with your prospects if they're ready.

[GD]

So if free agent John Doe gets a contract above or equal to X total dollars, then the signing team gives up a pick according to those ^ criteria, and the losing team gets a pick according to those ^ criteria.

 

The NHL's restricted free agency is like this, isn't it?

[AdamGreenwood]

Sorry, but that's a terrible system you've concocted.

 

Why should a team have to pay more because the team the player is coming from did poorly?

That creates a disincentive for players to sign with poor teams in the first place. Are you trying to make it harder for players to leave bad teams?

 

Instead, compensation should be taken from the general pool, rather than making the signing team pay the compensation.

This way, the team losing the player gets compensated, but it does not make it harder for the players to sign with another team.

 

You already have the luxury tax system, making the league more competitive, and punishing those teams that go crazy with the free agent signings and salary.

[Laika]

Why should a team have to pay more because the team the player is coming from did poorly?

 

Sorry, unclear writing. They wouldn't have to pay more. The surrendered and compensatory picks would be different picks, not transferred from team to team.

 

So the signing team loses a pick of X value based on how much they spent on the particular free agent and their team record/payroll the previous season. Another way to knock them value here without taking a pick away would be to penalize their first or second round pick by a certain amount of slots. So 20th overall becomes 40th overall because you signed Chris Sale in free agency (or whatever).

 

And the team losing the free agent gets a sandwich round pick compensation package determined by how much the guy signed for and how bad/poor they were in the previous year. Sandwich packages could include multiple picks for big free agents lost.

[TwistedLogic]

Sorry, unclear writing. They wouldn't have to pay more. The surrendered and compensatory picks would be different picks, not transferred from team to team.

 

The current system already does this. The old system transferred exact picks from team to team (Team A gives pick #16 to Team . In the current system, Team A loses pick #16 but Team B's compensation pick is in the 30s.

[NorthOf49]

Get rid of the draft. Give teams capped amateur signing budgets based on a lottery weighted by the past four years' record, with figures ranging from $18M to $12M, although with an advantage for signing players out of your own home region (split up fairly, taking into account the past thirty five years of WAR/county data. The Rangers don't get all of North Texas to themselves). Only 70% of the bonus for home region players counts against the cap. International players are included since there'd no longer be a need for separate systems.

[Abomination]

Get rid of the draft. Give teams capped amateur signing budgets based on a lottery weighted by the past four years' record, with figures ranging from $18M to $12M, although with an advantage for signing players out of your own home region (split up fairly, taking into account the past thirty five years of WAR/county data. The Rangers don't get all of North Texas to themselves). Only 70% of the bonus for home region players counts against the cap. International players are included since there'd no longer be a need for separate systems.

 

I disagree with the home region part (although I get the appeal), but overall there could be something to the capped amateur budget. Make it a little more dynamic though, with all non-playoff teams participating in a weighted lottery for budget amount (playoff teams get fixed amount based on how deep into the playoffs they go). That amount can then be increased based on teams losing a (say) FA 30 or under who are offered a QO, and 50% of the amount can be traded. Once you reach your budget limit, you can still sign players but for no more than 100k. Get rid of all other forms of compensation etc. Roll IFA's in as well.

 

Not sure if issues would crop up from this (some less desirable destinations could be at a disadvantage for example, although I think players would tend to follow the money), but it would make things more interesting overall.

[Laika]

The current system already does this. The old system transferred exact picks from team to team (Team A gives pick #16 to Team . In the current system, Team A loses pick #16 but Team B's compensation pick is in the 30s.

 

I know

[Abomination]

Better have a salary floor if that's the case, or you'd have 110-loss teams.

 

No kidding. I also hate the idea of rewarding owners of teams like the Marlins.

[Abomination]

They wouldn't get any more rewarded than they already do lol.

 

True, but I have issue with that also

 

I think the capped amateur budget would work to solve the same things, but without rewarding tanking (at least to the same degree).

[NorthOf49]

I disagree with the home region part (although I get the appeal), but overall there could be something to the capped amateur budget. Make it a little more dynamic though, with all non-playoff teams participating in a weighted lottery for budget amount (playoff teams get fixed amount based on how deep into the playoffs they go). That amount can then be increased based on teams losing a (say) FA 30 or under who are offered a QO, and 50% of the amount can be traded. Once you reach your budget limit, you can still sign players but for no more than 100k. Get rid of all other forms of compensation etc. Roll IFA's in as well.

 

Not sure if issues would crop up from this (some less desirable destinations could be at a disadvantage for example, although I think players would tend to follow the money), but it would make things more interesting overall.

How about this: Rank the thirty teams by guaranteed dollars committed by other teams to free agent players that have been in the organization for two-plus seasons minus guaranteed dollars committed by the organization to other teams' free agents. A free agency plus/minus stat. Then you give the top team (i.e., the most free agency worsened team) a 15% spike in amateur cap, followed by 14%... and so on to a 15% decrease for the most free agency improved team.

 

That way no specific players are hurt by compensation and teams don't have to make any strange decisions to get around the rules. It affects the industry as a whole uniformly.

[Abomination]

How about this: Rank the thirty teams by guaranteed dollars committed by other teams to free agent players that have been in the organization for two-plus seasons minus guaranteed dollars committed by the organization to other teams' free agents. A free agency plus/minus stat. Then you give the top team (i.e., the most free agency worsened team) a 15% spike in amateur cap, followed by 14%... and so on to a 15% decrease for the most free agency improved team.

 

That way no specific players are hurt by compensation and teams don't have to make any strange decisions to get around the rules. It affects the industry as a whole uniformly.

 

I think it would penalize older players too much. I think you have to place some kind of age cap on it, in which case you may just as well keep it simpler and award extra cap for players under x years of age who leave due to FA.

[NorthOf49]

I think it would penalize older players too much. I think you have to place some kind of age cap on it, in which case you may just as well keep it simpler and award extra cap for players under x years of age who leave due to FA.

I like that. Maybe only first-time free agents with less than eight years of ML service are relevant. The idea is to keep in-prime players with their teams, as it keeps small-markets interested. I.e. it's good for the game that McCutchen seems committed to staying in Pittsburgh. Older players who have already been through the free agent loop before don't really matter.

[Abomination]

I like that. Maybe only first-time free agents with less than eight years of ML service are relevant. The idea is to keep in-prime players with their teams, as it keeps small-markets interested. I.e. it's good for the game that McCutchen seems committed to staying in Pittsburgh. Older players who have already been through the free agent loop before don't really matter.

 

You could always award bonus cap space for signing a player who has been in your organization for at least (say) 3 years to an extension that covers FA years.

[AdamGreenwood]

"To be honest I'd be happy with a randomly-generated snake-draft. Don't punish success or reward failure. Of course Selig would probably rig the draft, but I like the idea."

 

Ridiculous. You probably want a flat tax rate too. Or maybe everyone pays the exact same dollars in taxes.

You and Mussolini would have been great friends.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing a lottery for the bottom six teams though, like they have in the NBA so teams don't tank on purpose if there is a great prospect one year.

[Brenner]

Sure MLB could tweak it a bit but these players declined a rather nice 1 year deal. They could have just accepted the money, it was a risk they took declining it.

[TheHurl]

What I learned from this thread:

 

Scott Boras would make an incredible commissioner

None of you would

All of you would still be better than Selig

[Key22]

I like the bottom 6 lottery idea of who gets the first overall pick. I don't follow basketball or football.

 

I think the draft is entertaining and I think it has begun to get a lot of attention over the last decade so I think it has to stay. Not a fan of the convoluted draft pool money. Pay these clowns coming up hard numbers - first round get picks get $1 mill, round 2 $900K round 3 $800K. Everyone past round 10 gets $50k. Done simple. (the numbers are an example - make them higher but it forces teams to actually select talent at each round.

 

None of this "he'll be a tough signs nonsense" and we'll have to take scrubs in rounds 2-10 to use that bonus pool money for the top guy. Right now it's a farce.

 

The above would then lend quite well to draft pick trading because the last place teams can trade for 1st and 2nd round pics without worrying that they won't have the cash to sign them and be forced to take "easy signs" which means "lesser talents" because they can't afford the best talent. A draft is SUPPOSED to help weaker teams inject talent into their organization not let the best players fall to NYY or Boston with their 28th pick or 30th pick.

 

The Union won't like the above but for that concession you give them a bigger money maker for the players and agents by doing the following:

Expand the The Luxury tax threshold to $210 million while making the minimum payroll $70million. This would more than offset the draft signings - agents happy. Players union should be happy. Increase salaries to all minor league players and have a better minor league pension plan (or one at all if there is none) based on Minor league playing time not just major league playing time.

 

If you go over the $210 million threshold then for every dollar you pay another $5. So if the Yankees go over by $1million - they pay $5million to the league. If they go over by by $10 million they pay $50million to league. They can do this for 2 years only - a third year and the penalty triples to $15million to for each $1million they go over.

 

The penalty tax will be distributed to all other major league baseball teams and will be divided amongst the in game workers (peanut vendors, Ice-Cream vendors, beer pourers, security guards - NOT the owners) - or it can boost the Minor league pension fund.

 

Teams that fall under $70 million Err I got no ideas here. They're probably bad teams and if you take draft picks they save money. I suppose you could say 2 infraction you have to sell the club.

[TheHurl]

I'm glad you bumped this. I had missed Greenwood calling me fascist because of my opinion on the MLB draft.

 

Maybe you are commissioner material