Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Friday, November 11, 2022
Tyler Anderson
Chris Bassitt
Xander Bogaerts
Willson Contreras
Jacob deGrom
Nate Eovaldi
Aaron Judge
Brandon Nimmo
Joc Pederson
Martin Perez
Anthony Rizzo
Carlos Rodon
Dansby Swanson
Trea Turner
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. The Duke Posted: November 11, 2022 at 09:53 AM (#6105109)Anderson is a tough call -- on the one hand, turning 33, it might easily be his only shot at multiple years so even 2/$30 or 3/$40 would be good; on the other hand, if he repeats in 2023, he'll do much better next year. According to b-r, Anderson has already made $16 so either way, set for life.
I can't see any way Pederson says no - what a windfall for him (unless the Giants sign Pham)
And the lost draft pick is nearly meaningless at this point. At worst a team loses their 2nd-highest pick. Other than not signing their previous pick, I don't think there's any way for a team to have more than one pick in the top 30 anymore. The next picks are the compensation picks awarded to revenue-receiving teams that lost an FA -- so there's pretty much no way anybody can lose a pick this high either.** Then there are the competitive balance picks given to revenue-sharing teams -- in rare circumstances they might lose one of thee picks. Finally you get to the 2nd round which is the pick most likely lost by an FA-signing team.
** If a revenue-receiving team signed a QO-rejecting FA, they forfeit their 3rd pick. If they also lost such a FA then conceivably they would have a regular 1st round pick, a compensation pick and a competitive balance pick, losing the competitive balance pick. If they lost 2 FAs while signing one, I suppose they'd lose the 2nd compensation pick.
There are plenty of weidnesses though. For example, in the 2022 draft, the Dodgers didn't pick until #40 which was a penalty for exceeding the threshold repeatedly. But that top pick is now also protected. So when the Dodgers rock up with money for some FA, they'll be forfeiting their second pick which would be something like #70. They'd also lose their 5th highest pick which might well be around #160.
So I'm not sure all the unintended silliness has been worked out yet. I believe it's somewhere between possible and likely that the Rays would forfeit a higher pick than the Dodgers even though the Rays would only surrender their 3rd highest pick.
The other day I read the compensation for teams related to losing or signing a player who received a qualifying offer. It's convoluted, in a way only MLB seems to muster. From the MLB Glossary:
Perez and Joc should definitely accept. I don't know if they could even get 2/$20 on the open market.
Eovaldi I think accepts. He could do a lot better next offseason if he can stay healthy in 2023, and isn't going to get $20m AAV this offseason.
Rizzo also could accept, especially if he wants to stay in New York. I could see him doing an Abreu-style 3 year deal after taking the QO.
Everybody else is a pretty easy decline.
I actually don't mind convoluted, if it works. I would rather have a convoluted system that is designed to be fair all across the spectrum, than a simple system that has clear flaws. This system basically says a team that has a bad record isn't going to be penalized for signing a player from another team as much as a team with a good record is penalized. With caveats in place for large payroll teams to potentially make their hit to a signing a bit worse.
I like the addition that nobody loses a first round pick, I get that they did this partially so they can sell the live version of the draft, but it still works, and honestly a first round pick was probably too high of a price to pay for losing a guy to free agency, especially since probably over half of them were originally later round picks.
I understand what you're saying and I need to give it more consideration, but my initial thought is that the system in place seems backward in its arrangement—compensation/penalties are being determined by franchise factors rather than qualities of the player who changed teams. Assuming I read the rules above correctly, the Yankees would get a pick after the fourth round if Judge signs elsewhere. That doesn't seem like much.
The penalty for giving up a player was never about the quality of the player being given up, it was always about franchise factors, as well it should be. From a fan perspective it doesn't matter if it's the best player or just a very good player, it's the fact that my franchise is losing a player, and the penalty should be based upon the actions of the franchise acquiring the player. We want to penalize the demon Yankees for buying everyone (note this is no longer an accurate claim but it is the genesis of the thought process)
Compensation is my team loses a player, another team stole/bought my player, I deserve compensation. The system that is convoluted is designed to assign degrees of punishment based upon how the acquiring team works. It punishes the most teams who have no care in the world and will spend indiscriminately while other teams are punished to a lesser degree.
It would certainly be understandable but, like I said, according to b-r, he already has $16 M in career earnings and can now just say yes to $19 more. Enough for him and Mrs to squeak by on I would hope. The reason he's had these 1-years is because he's gotten hurt a couple of times and pitched at best average in the other times. This year of course he put up a monster year. If he does anything like that again in 2023, he'll do very, very well in 2024-26. Normally for a guy his age I'd recommend exactly what you suggest. And I still would if his agent thinks he can get, say, 3/$40 or better. But 1/$19 looks awfully sweet and, if he's ever gonna bet on himself, now's the time.
The penalty for giving up a player was never about the quality of the player being given up,
sure it was, that's what type A, type B, etc. and the Elias rankings were all about. And they still are it's just that they don't designate "this guy is quality" they designate "their team thinks this guy is worth at least 1/$19" and assume that means he's high quality. There's also that bit about if they sign for $50 or more which is another quality indicator (I think that one affects compensation only).
Annoying question: the Twins signed Correa for 3/$105 but with the opt-out, it's just 1/$35 ... so does that count as $50 M or more?
As to the Yanks -- they're the richest team in baseball, of course they don't get much compensation for not signing Judge. F'ing cheapskates, wouldn't rock up with good money last year when they could have had him for relative peanuts.
Granted, now that MLB has officially adopted WAR in some capacities, they could go with a FA compensation system that gets past the "class" of free agents to individual ones if somebody thinks that's important. Something like "the draft order of the comp picks in a given round will be determined by WAR of the player lost within each team-type (revenue-receiving, neutral, lux tax cheats)."
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main