Did the Mets offer arbitration to Billy Wagner?

The Mets did not offer arbitration to Billy Wagner. Or to Jason Bay, either. :-)

Andrecheck: Type A label hurts free agents, especially relievers

Yes, that is the entire idea of it, thank you.

The Mets did not offer arbitration to Billy Wagner. Or to Jason Bay, either. :-)

D'oh! I'm a transaction behind. Did the Red Sox offer him arbitration, then?

If the entire idea of the Type A label is to hurt free agents, especially relievers, are you saying that Andrecheck is wrong when he says "For a long time, teams seemed to more or less ignore this tax, figuring that most draftees were unlikely to make much of an impact anyway"?

D'oh! I'm a transaction behind. Did the Red Sox offer him arbitration, then?

TBD. Dec. 1 is the magic date.

If the entire idea of the Type A label is to hurt free agents, especially relievers, are you saying that Andrecheck is wrong when he says "For a long time, teams seemed to more or less ignore this tax, figuring that most draftees were unlikely to make much of an impact anyway"?

Those two things can both be true.

Teams originally wanted player-for-player free agent compensation -- you sign one of my players, I can take one of yours. The players compromised so that the compensatory players were from a pool, not just from the team doing the signing. So teams ended up losing players because someone else signed a free agent.

Well, that wouldn't do, so they changed it to draft picks. Teams didn't figure that draft picks were worth *that* much, so it didn't have much impact on free agent values. Especially with the explosion of free agent salaries, draft picks grew in real value and apparent value, and now teams are less willing to part with them.

The entire point of free agent compensation was to lower the value of free agents.

So teams ended up losing players because someone else signed a free agent.

IIRC, that was how the White Sox ended up with Tom Seaver in 1984. That caused quite a stir.

The entire point of free agent compensation was to lower the value of free agents.

That's absolutely true, but it doesn't address the issue of whether the current system unfairly punishes some players, esp. relievers.

So teams ended up losing players because someone else signed a free agent.

IIRC, that was how the White Sox ended up with Tom Seaver in 1984. That caused quite a stir.

It's also how the Jays ended up with Tom Henke.

This article is good, but I think it missed on something that will very likely happen this year, which is that a number of teams will NOT offer arbitration to their Type A FAs, for fear that the player will accept the arbitration offer and take them to the cleaners (as compared to a possibly depressed FA market in 2009-2010).

Conversely, I don't see many Orlando Hudson's or Juan Cruz's refusing arbitration if they are so offered.

I think that is exactly right. Teams are less likely to offer arbitration to the middle relievers that Sky is talking about. If they do, the player can stick around and get his market value from the arbiter.

clearly teams don't realize they have to approach free agents like the yankees do: sign stud type-A FA (that is worth the compensation), then every subsequent type-A free agent has less of this "tax" because you don't have any more first round picks to give up!

clearly this needs to change - either teams should not be allowed to sign multiple type A free agents if they can't pay the requisite compensation (and if this means we have to let teams trade picks, go ahead), or the compensation package itself needs to be fixed. it's sad that the blue jays/angels get shafted because the yankees signed sabathia first.

actually, was marte a type-A? in that case, the angels got shafted too...

I hadn't thought about this until now, but this may also be a factor in the lengths of deals given to Type A free agents. If you have an older borderline Type A guy like Wagner, it's a huge factor. If you have a younger borderline guy like Juan Cruz, at least you could sign him to a 3 or 4 year deal and spread out the cost of the draft pick. You might do that if you thought 2009 was a fluke bad year for him, and he's really the pitcher he was in 2007-8.

clearly this needs to change - either teams should not be allowed to sign multiple type A free agents if they can't pay the requisite compensation

Things that will never happen:

1) That.

it's sad that the blue jays/angels get shafted because the yankees signed sabathia first.

It doesn't go in order. Sabathia was the highest rated.

Draft pick compensation will liekly be eliminated in the next contract, anyway, so the owners can get draft slotting.

Or they could do away with compensation altogether. Do any other leagues require compensation when a free agent walks?

Or they could do away with compensation altogether. Do any other leagues require compensation when a free agent walks?

The NFL has a franchise player thing where you have to give up a couple of first rounders or something when you sign one of them.

And the NHL has restricted free agency, for which compensation is required in the form of draft picks.

Contains some interesting mentions of what “research” determines a first-round pick to be worth, and a win to be worth. No citations to the research, though.

I'm assuming Sky is referring to his own work here:

Draft Picks and Expected Wins Above Replacement
The Draft and Wins Above Replacement (Part 2)

1. Relievers are screwed. But they're screwed by the Elias ranking system not FA compensation -- or at least they are screwed more by the ranking than the average player then screwed by the FA compensation for the reasons in the article. There are 26 Type A FAs and 10 of them are relievers and we're generally not talking established closers. John Grabow, a thoroughly mediocre pitcher, was a Type A while Carl Crawford (if his option hadn't been picked up) would have been a Type B.

It's one thing for the rankings to be based on a silly formula that has little hope of identifying the best players -- the formula is agreed on by owners and players -- but it's another thing when that silly formula screws over a particular class of players.

2. It's true, a lot of these middle relievers then don't get offered arb. It's also true that the ones that do might be silly to turn it down.

3. It's not entirely accurate to say the (original) point of compensation was to drive down the price of FA. The point was to make sure that the team losing the FA -- always assumed to be some poor, abused "small market" team -- wouldn't be left with nothing. As noted, the original compensation was actual MLB players. It was fear of creating a set of old KC A's whose good players would all be bought by the Yanks and they'd be left with nothing. Yes, part of the "solution" to that is to keep the price down as well so those poor, abused small market teams might be able to afford to re-sign their own guys.

4. As the system has worked out, it's been as much an advantage to the Yanks as anyone. Not only is the marginal cost of signing a 2nd, 3rd, etc. FA fairly trivial, but the Yanks have received tons of compensation picks over the years when teams sign their type A FAs.

5. So I think the easiest fix to the system would be something along the lines of "unless you have a protected draft pick, you don't get compensated", possibly expanding that protection to cover the top 20 or 22 picks. OK, a more realistic variation would be that the only compensation the winning teams get is the supplemental pick. That way the Yanks don't benefit (much) if somebody signs Damon and protected teams don't suffer much if they sign an FA.

So I think the easiest fix to the system would be something along the lines of "unless you have a protected draft pick, you don't get compensated", possibly expanding that protection to cover the top 20 or 22 picks. OK, a more realistic variation would be that the only compensation the winning teams get is the supplemental pick. That way the Yanks don't benefit (much) if somebody signs Damon and protected teams don't suffer much if they sign an FA.

1) Twins make playoffs.
2) Joe Mauer signs with Yankees.
3) Yankees don't have to give draft pick compensation because the Twins made the playoffs.

I'm a Yankees fan, and I say that stinks.

I'm a Yankees fan, and I say that stinks.

I agree. I'd like to see something more drastic: draft picks, minor leaguers, and major league talent go to the team whose player was taken. Each team can protect 20 players, and the team whose FA was taken can choose to select a draft pick, a minor leaguer, or a major leaguer from the signing team. For every free agent signed, the number of protected players drops by one (the signed FA must remain a protected player). If the price extracted is too high for the signing club, the signing team can attempt trade the FA back to the original team for the already signed contract minus 15% or more of AAV (which they have to pay), if both parties agree.

I'd like to see something more drastic: draft picks, minor leaguers, and major league talent go to the team whose player was taken. Each team can protect 20 players, and the team whose FA was taken can choose to select a draft pick, a minor leaguer, or a major leaguer from the signing team.

Again, that's not going to happen. It would have an extreme chilling effect on free agency -- especially for more average players -- and the players would never, ever, ever, ever, ever go for it.

They'd accept a hard cap before they accepted that.

16. JJ1986 Posted: November 20, 2009 at 12:27 PM (#3392496)
it's sad that the blue jays/angels get shafted because the yankees signed sabathia first.

It doesn't go in order. Sabathia was the highest rated.

It was the Brewers and Blue Jays that got screwed over. Teixeria was the highest rated player in the 2009 off season.

and the players would never, ever, ever, ever, ever go for it

Oh, I know, but I really am tired of all of the free agent movement. I hate how predictable it is that the same few teams always end up with the best free agents.

Oh, I know, but I really am tired of all of the free agent movement. I hate how predictable it is that the same few teams always end up with the best free agents.

That's a different problem entirely, and should be fixed through a fairer revenue sharing plan, not free agency restrictions.

Players should have the right to sign where they want to.

Oh, I know, but I really am tired of all of the free agent movement. I hate how predictable it is that the same few teams always end up with the best free agents.

Like Soriano to the Cubs, Lee to the Astros, and Gary Matthews Jr. to the Angels? :)

it's sad that the blue jays/angels get shafted because the yankees signed sabathia first.

It doesn't go in order. Sabathia was the highest rated.

Angels came out fine. Tex was rated higher than Sabathia, Angels got the first rounder. Brewers only got a 2nd for C.C.

I think the compensation should be determined by the salary offered. Big compensation for high priced talent, little or none for low priced talent. That's it. Let the market determine which players deserve to have their losses compensated.

Why not get rid of 'compensation' per se and just slot picks?

Maybe rather than 'sandwich round' -- stick in the middle of the 1st or something... say - whereever the +/-.500 line in draft order, insert 5 five picks of say... the "biggest contracts".

If I'm the Twins and I lose Mauer, and Mauer signed the most expensive contract this offseason, I get the 16th pick (if team at 15 was +500, original team at 16 was below 500).

Obviously, I don't know the legalese behind 'compensation' per se (does that compensation have to have a 'cost' to the signing team?) -- but this way, you provide some level of recompense to small market clubs losing players without rewarding really bad organizations.

26. Tripon Posted: November 20, 2009 at 01:36 PM (#3392625)
It was the Brewers and Blue Jays that got screwed over. Teixeria was the highest rated player in the 2009 off season.

man, i knew i was gonna get that wrong, but it doesn't matter - 2 teams got screwed over.

I agree. I'd like to see something more drastic: draft picks, minor leaguers, and major league talent go to the team whose player was taken. Each team can protect 20 players, and the team whose FA was taken can choose to select a draft pick, a minor leaguer, or a major leaguer from the signing team. For every free agent signed, the number of protected players drops by one (the signed FA must remain a protected player). If the price extracted is too high for the signing club, the signing team can attempt trade the FA back to the original team for the already signed contract minus 15% or more of AAV (which they have to pay), if both parties agree.

really interesting idea, but the players' union won't go for it. as intrugging as it sounds would restrict free agency too much.

i don't mind free agents going where they want. it'd be nice if some of them make their way to other teams besides the usual suspects, but that's icing on the cake for me.

i just don't understand how any team (like last year's yankees) can get away with not paying the required compensation after signing a free agent. i mean, that's like telling a player: we're gonna sign you for $100 m. oh wait, we don't have $100 m, so here's $90 m.

18. Srul Itza Posted: November 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM (#3392527)

Or they could do away with compensation altogether. Do any other leagues require compensation when a free agent walks?

other leagues aren't a fair comparison because:
a) no other league has 50 rounds of drafts (you wanna talk about mr. irrelevant? you have to count up to 1500!)
b) no other league restricts the trading of draft picks
c) no other league has the has the same "prospect failure" ratio as mlb
d) every other league now has a salary cap

too many differing factors. i mean, in football, teams get draft pick compensation for hiring away a head coach.

Obviously, I don't know the legalese behind 'compensation' per se (does that compensation have to have a 'cost' to the signing team?) -- but this way, you provide some level of recompense to small market clubs losing players without rewarding really bad organizations.

i want to say that the purpose of compensation is actually to deter teams from doing what the yankees did: sign every single (useful) free agent available on the market. team budget should cover that, but obviously when you have unlimited resources like the yankees, that doesn't matter.

otherwise, why not just make up sandwich/compensation picks out of thin air? why do they have to take the first round pick from the signing team.

otherwise, why not just make up sandwich/compensation picks out of thin air? why do they have to take the first round pick from the signing team.

Well, I think it was put in place to 'punish'/lower FA value -- i.e., the yankees sign Mauer, so the Yankees pay the twins a pick.

Does the MLBPA come into play if ceding of picks - but retention of compensatory sandwich style picks remain in place?

In other words - if the Yankees didn't LOSE a pick, but the Twins GAINED a made-up pick slotted somewhere - does this mean that the MLBPA is still going to care?

It seems to me that this doesn't raise the implied 'cost' of signing a FA, simply provides recompense to the losing team.

In other words - if the Yankees didn't LOSE a pick, but the Twins GAINED a made-up pick slotted somewhere - does this mean that the MLBPA is still going to care?

I would think the teams would care. The problem with inserting picks is that you're punishing all of the teams in the lower end of the round who might not have signed a big-ticket free agent. To put it in perspective, the Twins lose Mauer and get pick 16, but then, lets say the Brewers make the post-season by catching lightning in a bottle, and they pick lower in the round, 5 or 10 slots lower than they would have just because they made the playoffs and because the Yankees picked up some other team's free agent. I'm of the opinion that the first round is inviolable: you can't mess with the order of it and I think MLB is of the same opinion, which is why we have sandwich round picks. A team's first pick is the most important (even though some teams waste it because they're stupid).

I'm a Yankees fan, and I say that stinks.

Something's always gonna stink. The 30th pick in the draft isn't much compensation to the Twins so it's not gonna screw them over that much (and gives them an equally tiny extra incentive to extend Mauer).

In 2006, the Yanks picked Ian Kennedy and Joba Chamberlain with compensation picks. In 2005 Carl Henry (part of the Abreu deal right?). In 2004, Philip Hughes. They picked up John-Ford Griffin and Jason Arnold (part of the famed Jeff Weaver trade!). He didn't sign but back in 98, they drafted Mark Prior with a supplemental pick. And I say that stinks.

Draft pick compensation will liekly be eliminated in the next contract, anyway, so the owners can get draft slotting.

The owners won't get draft slotting (or a worldwide draft) by "just" the elimination of draft pick compensation. As I have pointed out before, the Clarett decision indicates that the draft is considered a "mandatory" subject for collective bargaining, even if there is no tie whatsoever to the compensation of union members, because the draft defines the terms of entry into the labor market.

-- MWE

Is the Elias formula for the ranking posted anywhere?