Compensation Pick Rule Change (Relievers)

[Bumstead]

You know this sets Boise back another 2 seasons, right?

Now you're just trolling.

Or just joking...who can tell...

[RonCo]

I don't think landing comp picks requires skill....but we all have our own thoughts.

Depends on what you call a skill. I do think a good GM looks at a players and assesses that player's likelihood of generating a comp pick and alters valuation appropriately as they look to trade or acquire players. Is player valuation a skill? I've seen teams trade players who were due to generate a pick for pennies on the dollar. Is avoiding that a skill?

You make the call!

[agrudez]

I'm still on the fence about dropping comp picks, but in the midst of discussing its cons, one pro. It theoretically helps bad teams get better value in trades. If you know you can get a 65 POT prospect in the supplemental first round by simply letting your 26 year old all star walk at the end of the year, then you have some ammo in discussing deals with the sharks. Whether or not the bad teams capitalize on this knowledge is an open question, but it's at least there if they want to use it.

[Ted]

I'm still on the fence about dropping comp picks, but in the midst of discussing its cons, one pro. It theoretically helps bad teams get better value in trades. If you know you can get a 65 POT prospect in the supplemental first round by simply letting your 26 year old all star walk at the end of the year, then you have some ammo in discussing deals with the sharks. Whether or not the bad teams capitalize on this knowledge is an open question, but it's at least there if they want to use it.

I think that the last line here is the most important. Some of us, myself among them, just don't think about the comp pick part enough. It's an oversight. I have no one to blame for that but myself. But until I heard you talk about it awhile back, I'd never even thought, "I have to get better than the comp pick I will get anyway for this guy."

[Bumstead]

I'm still on the fence about dropping comp picks, but in the midst of discussing its cons, one pro. It theoretically helps bad teams get better value in trades. If you know you can get a 65 POT prospect in the supplemental first round by simply letting your 26 year old all star walk at the end of the year, then you have some ammo in discussing deals with the sharks. Whether or not the bad teams capitalize on this knowledge is an open question, but it's at least there if they want to use it.

Let's argue with facts: 9 comp picks at end of 1st round. Montreal has 2, the rest of the teams are over .500...does that mean the rest of us bottom feeders are stupid and traded all our comp eligible players for lesser value? I didn't have any but...also, why do I want to sign a free agent to make YS9 better? Makes very little sense to me. Comp picks just add to the uphill climb for the have-nots in OOTP on-line action.

[RonCo]

It would be interesting to go back five or ten seasons and see which GMs/teams were the "best" at accumulating comp picks.

[RonCo]

But that would still miss the hidden value of what extra value a GM can or should extract from trade of comp-eligible players that Kyle talks about. Admittedly, there is a lot of game theory in the comp pick rules today. Personally, I find that game theory fun, but others clearly either don't see that game theory or don't like it.

[Bumstead]

But that would still miss the hidden value of what extra value a GM can or should extract from trade of comp-eligible players that Kyle talks about. Admittedly, there is a lot of game theory in the comp pick rules today. Personally, I find that game theory fun, but others clearly either don't see that game theory or don't like it.

"hidden value." Is there not value in adding a known prospect sooner than waiting on the wildcard of the draft quality (65 isn't the value of the comp pick annually). Is there not value to adding a "prospect" or player that isn't 5 years away from playing? The "end result" isn't the right way to measure whether the GM made the right decision or not. Sometimes timing is more valuable. What about the GM who holds onto a player that qualifies for comp and then nobody signs the guy until after the draft order is set? I had that happen to me when I ran Twin Cities with Kirk Burkett after his 2029 season; he signed the sim after the draft started...so, I got nothing. Was that smart? Of course, as I recall, I couldn't get any real value out of him during the season either. The suggestion that the have-nots just don't understand how to take advantage of the comp system seems a bit out of range for me. The have-nots just can't take the chance of losing the guy completely in the current system.

Another plus of getting rid of comp picks, more deadline trading possibly as the have's have to take into consideration whether they are going to extend or let the player walk (or trade the player). More competition for free agents as there are zero ties to signing them other than the cash commitment. But, I'm sure the have's like it the way it is.

[RonCo]

I agree all the things you've discussed are part of the game theory of the comp pick thing. How you weigh them based on what situation you're in is part of what makes the process interesting. I find that to be fun, regardless of whether my club wins 100 games (as it has) or only 80 (as we did last season).

[Ted]

Ron, I think this is where our personalities and biases show. You like everything that adds more game theory, and tend to find ways to see it in a favorable light. Whereas I'm like, "CHANGE BAD" (said in Frankenstein voice) and look for ways things can fail.

[RonCo]

I don't care if we remove something because we think it's no fun or because we think it's actually bad for the competitive environment. But, I strongly debate the comp pick rule is weighted to the "haves." If you are a GM of a down team, one of your goals in FA should be signing guys who might bring you a pick.

I recall getting somewhat derided for signing a solid reliever to a 1-season deal for too much money ($8M) at one point. Literally anyone could have done it. That's exactly what the guy was asking for. I said "Heck, for that $8M I have kicking around doing nothing, I get a risk-free 1-season great reliever and likely a 1st round supplemental pick. What's to dislike?" But a large group said I overpaid and another group said I lost because I didn't require a team option or two...but if I put an option on that, I wouldn't get a pick. So why would I do that? The pick alone is probably worth $8M.

Every team in the league could have done that--especially lower-level teams who often don't spend their budgets for whatever reason (which I'll generally never understand).

[Ted]

I don't care if we remove something because we think it's no fun or because we think it's actually bad for the competitive environment. But, I strongly debate the comp pick rule is weighted to the "haves." If you are a GM of a down team, one of your goals in FA should be signing guys who might bring you a pick.

I recall getting somewhat derided for signing a solid reliever to a 1-season deal for too much money ($8M) at one point. Literally anyone could have done it. That's exactly what the guy was asking for. I said "Heck, for that $8M I have kicking around doing nothing, I get a risk-free 1-season great reliever and likely a 1st round supplemental pick. What's to dislike?" But a large group said I overpaid and another group said I lost because I didn't require a team option or two...but if I put an option on that, I wouldn't get a pick. So why would I do that? The pick alone is probably worth $8M.

Every team in the league could have done that--especially lower-level teams who often don't spend their budgets for whatever reason (which I'll generally never understand).

I'm sure I was one of those critics. And I guarantee you the comp pick thoughts hadn't entered my mind. I was just wrong. Even if we don't do anything, I hope all the discussion about this gets all of us more aware that we've been ignoring a talent acquisition strategy.

[ae37jr]

Funny thing....i strictly used Mauro Flores as a starter last year, against my original plans, because I was afraid to get lumped into a contravercy such as this. I know that no one is accusing me. Just saying that I'm glad I took the high road and stayed out of trouble for once.

[bcslouck]

My problem again is this was done in season. Why couldn't wait until after the World Series on this? And say after this round of comps, we are going to this. People asked why I signed a closer. I did it for 2 reasons. One was for the fan interest bump. Two was for a potential comp down the line. You guys just decided my chance at that was cut in half long after I played within the rules.

And this would apply to anything. Getting rid of them, adding comps, etc. Doesn't matter what it is. Make that go into affect before people start using assets based on current league structure/rules. It's really frustrating.


EDIT: And not only my comp chances were cut in half, but now I can't get the highest possible comp.

[RonCo]

I think I've always said the right answer to almost every structural question is education. I may be wrong about almost everything I do, but since the day I came to OOTP I've been open about literally everything I do in the hopes to both help others and to learn more.

On a personal aside regarding the competitive environment: Before coming to the BBA, I decided I was looking for the most competitively structured league I could find (coming from the PEBA, which is a great league, but one more traditionally structured [without cap, and a few other things], I really wanted a better arrangement). This was important to me. So--in my own inimitable style--I did a whole lot of work in looking at competitive environments of online leagues before I came to the BBA. I literally went back through several league's history and made spreadsheets. Maybe 6-10 long-standing leagues. And saw that -- to my mind -- the BBA was clearly the league best structured, and had the best collection of veteran/active GMs. When I decided that, I made an all-fronts attack to join this league.

Yes, every competitive environment has its moneyball holes that good GMs can take advantage of. Those holes shift over time, though. That's part of the charm of the game, both on the real life field, as well as in the silicon chips of our computers.

[RonCo]

My problem again is this was done in season. Why couldn't wait until after the World Series on this? And say after this round of comps, we are going to this. People asked why I signed a closer. I did it for 2 reasons. One was for the fan interest bump. Two was for a potential comp down the line. You guys just decided my chance at that was cut in half long after I played within the rules.

And this would apply to anything. Getting rid of them, adding comps, etc. Doesn't matter what it is. Make that go into affect before people start using assets based on current league structure/rules. It's really frustrating.


EDIT: And not only my comp chances were cut in half, but now I can't get the highest possible comp.

Just to be clear: The comp chances were not cut. We did, though, decide relievers would all be Supplemental Round 2 picks.

[Bumstead]

This year: 9 comp picks. 7 to teams over .500 and 2 to Montreal. It will be similar every season. This is a have advantage. "oh you have nots should sign free agents for comp picks." Are comp picks worth $12M a year? What if my budget doesn't support such a position taken by YS9's budget? Comp picks are skewed to haves and always will be in on-line leagues. I have never seen a league where it wasn't skewed in that direction and this league is no different. To say it is, just shows you are wearing blinders and trudging forward.

I came back to this league for the competition from the long term GM's and the history, but that doesn't make it the perfect league. I am also in Simbl which has pretty much the same history and the same collection of long term competitive GM's. I have sought out the toughest competition I could find in every league I have played in the last 5 seasons or so. There are several out there just as competitive as this one.

Nevertheless comp picks are for the haves and always have been in OOTP leagues. Look back through the history of who got the picks. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

I'll quit for now. I have to go bowl anyway. Have a good night.

Jeff

[RonCo]

The Boise budget is $106M this year, its payroll is $36M, so you had $70M to spend. I know you were swamped, but that's a different problem. Boise could easily have tried to over-pay a blue-chip for 1 season and either dealt him at the deadline or (more likely) let him play out his season and turn him into a draft pick if he signed someplace else. Given that many weaker teams tend to greatly underspend their budgets (HAW is roughly $40M shy, LOU is $40M shy, WIC is $28M shy of salary cap, CCJ is $25M shy of budget), this is a greatly underutilized tool.

Deeply struggling teams need to utilize as much of their budget as they can to leverage either future players (future wins), or future budget (by gaining current wins/FI). [he says, pompously]. Leaving that kind of budget on the table is not helping things, and has nothing to do with the "haves" getting comp picks.

Your budget (current and future) is based on what your owner thinks you'll create in revenue, so the risk in spending a large part of your budget is not high. In fact, by not spending to improve your team, you run the risk of having a lower budget next year. And, to me, that would actually be the worst outcome your build could have.

[RonCo]

And, just to be clear, when I say "competitive" I'm really talking about the structure of the league as much or more than the GMs--though the GMs matter. I don't mean to disrespect other leagues. Most every league has some very good OOTP GMs in them, so they are competitive in that fashion. The BBA is quite deep, though. And it's base structure is as sound as any.

When I was doing my thing I was measuring based mostly on how rapidly teams could move from top to bottom (which was what I meant by "competitive").

FWIW, there were other factors, but the two biggest levers I found for being most competitive were (1) a hard salary cap, and (2) not trading draft picks.

Which makes sense when you think about it. A hard cap keeps the top teams from just running off and becoming untouchable, and retaining draft picks means a fly-by-night GM can't just trade off two years of the franchise's future before running away himself. So both are very large drivers of competitive balance. At that point you get into how the league does revenue sharing (which we do the right way for competitive balance--at the Gate so it affects future budget rather than as a cash hand-out, which does not), and capping cash on hand (our use of bonus funds is an inventive benefit there, too). Comp picks, if a team deeply understands them, are a bonus for "have nots" too, but it's true that they also benefit the "haves." Comp Picks are libertarian in nature. They don't care who you are.

Anyway, there are many great leagues out there--I've been a part of what, for its time, might have been the best ever--but the BBA uses the OOTP structure just about as well as any league can when it comes to arranging itself for max structural competition.

[Spiccoli]

I'm still on the fence about dropping comp picks, but in the midst of discussing its cons, one pro. It theoretically helps bad teams get better value in trades. If you know you can get a 65 POT prospect in the supplemental first round by simply letting your 26 year old all star walk at the end of the year, then you have some ammo in discussing deals with the sharks. Whether or not the bad teams capitalize on this knowledge is an open question, but it's at least there if they want to use it.

I think that the last line here is the most important. Some of us, myself among them, just don't think about the comp pick part enough. It's an oversight. I have no one to blame for that but myself. But until I heard you talk about it awhile back, I'd never even thought, "I have to get better than the comp pick I will get anyway for this guy."

I made that mistake trading Harsnett mid-season. I should have kept
him, got the pick and not have him destroy me in the playoffs against SFB.

Lesson learned - Going to keep Whitney Jr this year.