Draft Pick Compensation - Sandwich Rounds

[Andrew]

So what's the verdict? Am I safe updating the Rules with this? Is everybody on board?

Also forgot to add in the original post that we'd use the "homegrown" rule.

- Players are only eligible for compensation if they played their rookie season (lost their rookie eligibility) with the team that is losing them in Free Agency.

Rookie eligibility is: A player with less than 130 at-bats, a pitcher with less than 50 innings pitched.

[liquidcrash]

The rule seems good to me. So I say go ahead.

[Whale]

Well, so far everyone is in favor of it, the only response people were waiting for was Khrog, who left a message in the other forums well after this thread was started. So, since there was no negative response, I think it's a done deal.

[Clay]

I think both the "homegrown" and sandwhich rule are essential additions to the financial system. Good choice.

[HungryB]

I'm all aboard with this.

[BradleyB]

mmmm sandwich round

[rubisco43]

all aboard!

[Squint]

The current count:

Yes: 12
No: 0

I think it's safe to say that the majority is in favor of implementing the Sandwich Pick Compensation rule.

[Jistic]

Still opposed, but it doesn't matter vote-wise. This only waters down the draft IMO. The poor get poorer.

[Khrog]

As I send to Andrew in a PM when he asked my opinion on this compromise, I am not as opposed to this solution as the original. I am not a fan of draft pick compensation in general. I agree with Jistic's take that it has a tendency to maintain elite teams for a longer than normal duration; however, this solution does make this less of a problem since the upper level picks are just not lost.

Since Compensation picks are coming in some form, the choice is rather between this system or the previous one. This system limits what I believe are the onerous problems with the originally designed system so it is a much more palatable option.

*munch* *munch*

[Guest]

Fantastic idea.

[Squint]

Still opposed, but it doesn't matter vote-wise. This only waters down the draft IMO. The poor get poorer.

I'd really like to hear why you think so Jistic? Seriously. I've tossed this around in my head for the past 24 hours and I can't see a negative side to it whatsoever.

[Jistic]

Still opposed, but it doesn't matter vote-wise. This only waters down the draft IMO. The poor get poorer.

I'd really like to hear why you think so Jistic? Seriously. I've tossed this around in my head for the past 24 hours and I can't see a negative side to it whatsoever.

The bottom feeders most likely wont be losing that many great free agents IMO. The better teams will lose the better players. So it's two fold.

A. The better teams will stay on top by getting more draft picks.

B. The bottom feeder who say picked 3rd overall now has a devalued 2nd and 3rd round pick because the talent pool just got thinner. They in a sense got "pushed down" because of the additional picks jammed in at the end of the 1st round.

I understand the concept of compensatory picks, I just think in practice it will have the reverse effect of it's intention. There won't be a need to dump that guy in his contract year anyway because you know you're getting a 1st rounder at the end of the year when he walks. I think this will affect trade negotiations too since every player will now have a fixed value attached to them.

I'm just more conservative. This league likes to take a lot of ideas and make many changes at once. I'm not a big fan of that. Make a change, wait a few years. Make another change, wait a few years. But that's just me. Doesn't make me right.

At the end of the day though I always fall in with the consensus because I enjoy the league so much even if I am the Buffalo Bills.

[Squint]

Still opposed, but it doesn't matter vote-wise. This only waters down the draft IMO. The poor get poorer.

I'd really like to hear why you think so Jistic? Seriously. I've tossed this around in my head for the past 24 hours and I can't see a negative side to it whatsoever.

The bottom feeders most likely wont be losing that many great free agents IMO. The better teams will lose the better players. So it's two fold.

A. The better teams will stay on top by getting more draft picks.

B. The bottom feeder who say picked 3rd overall now has a devalued 2nd and 3rd round pick because the talent pool just got thinner. They in a sense got "pushed down" because of the additional picks jammed in at the end of the 1st round.

I understand the concept of compensatory picks, I just think in practice it will have the reverse effect of it's intention. There won't be a need to dump that guy in his contract year anyway because you know you're getting a 1st rounder at the end of the year when he walks. I think this will affect trade negotiations too since every player will now have a fixed value attached to them.

I'm just more conservative. This league likes to take a lot of ideas and make many changes at once. I'm not a big fan of that. Make a change, wait a few years. Make another change, wait a few years. But that's just me. Doesn't make me right.

At the end of the day though I always fall in with the consensus because I enjoy the league so much even if I am the Buffalo Bills.

I see what your saying, but I disagree on a couple of points (and I think this may just boil down to difference of opinion).

1. I think your under-estimating just how hard the financials are going to hit some of the teams that are considered upper-tier right now. Andrew has already had to trade a front line pitcher, Los Lunas has arguably the best player in the league on the block, and Sully is starting to clean house.

2. There are only going to be 2-4 sandwich picks (total) per year (if that). As far as I can see there are only two this year (Windy City and Hartford). How much does that actually de-value later round picks? Not much in my opinion.

In fact, the way I see it playing out is this:

Let's say I'm interested in Lumar. Los Lunas can let him walk and likely get the 21st overall pick (sandwich pick), or he can trade him to me for a 1st (7th overall) and 2nd or 3rd rounder. The sandwich pick becomes a moot point because he is now my property and falls under the "homegrown rule" and Los Lunas is much better off by getting two quality picks in return. I have the money to re-sign him and I have a star player for a few years. Such will be the cycle of things. It will come down to how savvy a GM you are.

This increases the value of our current picks and the good young players will be in the small market farm systems while the large market systems will have to have some damn good scouts to find the hidden gems with later round picks.

I don't see a flaw in this system and, in fact, I think this is as close as we're going to get to replicating the intent of the small/large market teams and mirroring the MLB.

That's my .02 cents.

[mahoney2]

I'm pretty confused. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

The "rich" can afford to sign their big stars and will continue to do so even if they can get a sandwich pick.

The "poor" cannot afford to sign big players and now get a sandwich pick, meaning they will have 3 of the top 40 or so picks instead of two.

I can't imagine anyone not signing a great player they can afford so they have a shot at the 21-30th player in the draft. I'd have signed Stiver this year if I thought he was worth the 19mm a year he wanted, the draft pick had nothing to do with not signing him.

With scouts on, most draft picks won't work out anyways. Its not straight up like it was with the SISA rankings. Look at the Rule V draft, everyone had very different lists of who they wanted. My own scouts can't even agree. Outside of the top 10 draft picks there's no one whos a slam dunk.

Edit: As for devaluing picks, how many 1st round sandwich picks will there be a year, 3, 4?