The Brewster

Hello All,
Over the years, there have been many discussions on what to do about Compensation Picks. With the dearth found in many recent drafts, it has become more apparent that Comp Picks are actually killing teams that pick at the top of the draft. With so many Comp Picks being earned, #1 in Round 2 was sometimes ending up as the 50th overall pick. By the end of the 2nd round, we were at about pick #110+. In order to try and cut down on those numbers, the GB instituted a 2-year average WAR rule to be eligible for a Comp Pick; did away with Comp Picks for RPs; and, increased the threshold needed to earn a Comp Pick. We still dont feel like we have the answer as to how to deal with Comp Picks.

So, we are asking you, our beloved BBA GMs, to provide input, ideas, complaints, support, etc. for how to deal with Comp Picks. Nothing will be decided upon right away and we hope to see a lot of input and discussions from everyone. If you dont feel comfortable providing any input yourself, please PM your idea/input to me and I will post it for you.

If anyone has any questions, please let me know.

Thanks for helping to continue to make the BBA great!
Brett

Kill them. If you've installed a half dozen rules and you still don't like the results, then you don't like comp picks. Throw 'em out.

aaronweiner wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:55 am

Kill them. If you've installed a half dozen rules and you still don't like the results, then you don't like comp picks. Throw 'em out.

There was enough different ideas just within the GB that we decided to open it up to everyone. Doing away with them is certainly one of the ideas.

I'm for the murder route.

Yeah, I'd also be in favor of just getting rid of them unless someone has a better, more creative idea. They kind of just seem to be a headache for everyone involved in managing them without providing much benefit at the end of the day.

Kill 'em.

Question? Are you talking abt comp picks for free agents or also for unsigned picks. All for killing the free agent ones, system is already too complicated. Not sure how I feel abt unsigned ones. It has never been an issue for me. But I have always had a big budget.

indiansfan wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:52 am

Question? Are you talking abt comp picks for free agents or also for unsigned picks. All for killing the free agent ones, system is already too complicated. Not sure how I feel abt unsigned ones. It has never been an issue for me. But I have always had a big budget.

I believe this would only affect free agent comp picks.

Okay, time to jump into the conversation. I like comp picks, because as a frequent losing team it gives me some leverage in trades when selling off my good players. If I didn't have that, I think there would be less return in trades for sellers, which would make it harder for them to rebuild their systems.

At the same time, there would be a lot more selling, because it would be the only way to recoup any value for departing players. So, we'd have more selling despite less returns, which would all add up to the rich teams staying rich, and the poor teams having a much harder time to rebuild.

I personally don't mind the inflated volume of the first two rounds of the draft. But if you're really concerned with that, do what MLB does, and take picks away from teams when they sign Type A or B free agents. That would keep all rounds the same size. (To be clear, I don't think we need to do that, but if you're looking for a solution to the extended draft rounds, there's one.)

1.) Make the comp picks be for the 2nd and third round instead of 1st and 2nd round, or shift it even later. the NFL for instance doesn't give out comp picks ahead of the 3rd round.

Now for two other ideas that I am sure people will toss their pitchforks at me for:
2.) Have a "draft lottery" for the top 5 (or bottom, however you look at it) teams in the draft to determine picks 1-5.
3.) Make draft picks tradable? I think this would be HUGE for helping to rebuild teams. I don't however support trading picks that are further out than the immediate draft coming up because that could severely hurt a team in a regime change.
4.) Another strange one...maybe we should penalize those "rich" teams who sign IFA's. If they sign an IFA for over the cap, they lose a draft pick? This would open up IFA's for lower budget teams or shorten the draft.

For the record, with the new CBA, they are actually having a draft lottery for all non-postseason teams this year with the odds still being the highest for the top 3 or 4 or something along those lines.

Some Ron-wisdom on Comp Picks:

"9N: Holistic? There’s a word for you.
RC: [ignoring the jab] And, really, by rule there are currently ten different ways to acquire platers into your organization. As a BBA GM, you have some control over nine of them. Even if you’re going to choose not to use one right now, you don’t want to ignore any of them. This league is honestly just too good for any team to rely on single-stage planning.

9N: Ten ways?
RC: [ticking off his fingers] Free Agents, Contract Extensions, Trades, Waiver claims, Amateur Draft, Generating Compensation Picks, Rule 5 Draft, International Free Agents, Minor League Free Agents, and Scouting Finds."

Or, "Growing teams should use this “feature” of our system more often, but really it’s used by the best (most skilled) GMs"

i would be ok with killing them, regardless i like the idea of making them only for non-playoff teams that we do now.

I like the idea of a draft lottery, but for the lowest ten teams or even all non-playoff teams. The benefits of one tank year (they never happen, right?) should be lessened over the subsequent three years/drafts.

I'm a big no on the draft pick trading. Too easy for departing GMs to really hamstring an incoming GM, even if it's just the one year.

GoldenOne wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:44 pm

Or, "Growing teams should use this “feature” of our system more often, but really it’s used by the best (most skilled) GMs"

I cannot access that link. Not sure why.

I am okay with killing or keeping them.

however, I dislike the idea of trading picks away as that would be murder on a new GM and requires more work by the board to review and enforce, opens up sub trading of picks and likely increases trading controversy.

i oppose forfeited picks full stop. a guaranteed way to ensure good free agents rot until after the draft. that discourages competition.

I do not think we need a lottery as we already have the 3 year rolling average for determining picks.

But these aren't super strong feelings. i would go with the majority view.

tldr: okay with killing them but it does radically alter trades between buyers and sellers.

Get rid of them. They hurt movement at the deadline (which I wish was moved up, but that’s a different subject).

tylertoo wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:15 pm

GoldenOne wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:44 pm

Or, "Growing teams should use this “feature” of our system more often, but really it’s used by the best (most skilled) GMs"

I cannot access that link. Not sure why.

I'm guessing it is on the GB forum that us peons don't have access to.

usnspecialist wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:29 pm

I'm guessing it is on the GB forum that us peons don't have access to.

tylertoo wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:50 pm

usnspecialist wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:29 pm

I'm guessing it is on the GB forum that us peons don't have access to.

Here's the part that can be declassified and released:

"Like all OOTP worlds, I think we do have a lot of GMs who don’t full think about or utilize the free agency system. They don’t look at the idea of signing a Kenny Hill to a $2M 1-year contract as the opportunity to get a compensation pick if he leaves a year later. Or they don’t think about the fact that trading him later in the year potentially costs them a pick (so any trade of him includes trading away a pick that goes into the ether).

When I signed Alvarado, no one said “hey, that’s a great deal…he’s got the 1-season money, Alvarado is a good pitcher, and if he keeps him all year he’ll probably get a draft pick, so that $8M is for a top-end reliever and an interesting prospect…helluva deal there!" Instead, the reaction was lukewarm and some even saying it was a bad contract.

Growing teams should use this “feature” of our system more often, but really it’s used by the best (most skilled) GMs, who will by definition already have teams who are pretty good. I mean, I could have over-paid Fajardo and kept him. I need a starting pitcher, after all. But the cost of doing that was both the over-pay and the loss of a potential draft pick, so I’ll go a different direction. Almost no one will think of it that way, but they should. Same for Miguel Macias. I’m sure I could have retained him, but I can get another guy and a free draft pick. Blah, blah, blah."

A solution in search of a problem.

What are we trying to solve with comp picks? I always found the administration and the rules around them way too complex. What if you trade the player? One year WAR or 2? Different sliding rules based on position. When they sign in FA matters. They don’t carry over if they don’t get signed. Just all very complex. And for what value?

I’d probably feel differently if there was ever any exciting talent beyond the first 10 picks. But there isn’t. So…meh. I vote get rid of them.

But if they are going to stay - make it as simple as possible.

And lastly - give some notice. I always hate when changes come out and it’s “effective immediately”. Do it a year or two out so people can adjust strategy to the new rule set.