Changes to FA QO Compensation

[Board of the PEBA]

Mike - Borealis
10:41 AM
There has been some discussion - really for a couple of seasons regarding the FA compensation issue as it relates to Qualifying Offers…


Matt - Shisa
10:42 AM
Oh no, not when I finally have one =P

2



Mike - Borealis
10:42 AM
Currently. if you have an eligible FA, you can make a Qualifying Offer (~$15M) and if they decline and sign elsewhere, you get a pick in the Supplemental round, after the 1st round…
10:44
The question of… equity(?) comes up - who really benefits (I suppose), and should we move the compensation back a round or two (to the 2nd or 3rd) - or perhaps get rid of it all together?
10:44
@Matt - Shisa
I’m only the messenger…

1



Greg - Alleghenies
10:45 AM
i say keep it as is

2



Lenny- Bears
10:45 AM
I agree with Greg.

2



Dan - Ghosts
10:45 AM
Eliminate it all together


Sean - Kentucky
10:45 AM
I am fine with it

1



Yuma
10:45 AM
I say do away with it.


Dan - Ghosts
10:45 AM
Free market!


Brian - Tempe Apollos
10:46 AM
The players who reject the QO definitely aren't benefitting

1



Michael - Hitmen
10:46 AM
Keep as is!


Brian - Tempe Apollos
10:46 AM
bc they get signed in June

1



Kevin - Evas
10:46 AM
I say eliminate it all together.


Brian - Tempe Apollos
10:47 AM
i think if we keep it, we should raise the salary of the QO


Evan - Underground
10:47 AM
It does have the effect of suppressing the already usually pretty weak FA classes

1



Tim - Warriors
10:47 AM
I also agree with Greg. Keep it as is … Or perhaps raise the dollar amount (for next season and beyond).


Greg - Alleghenies
10:47 AM
I am for raising the dollar amount


James - Calzones
10:47 AM
I also say do away with it.


Brian - Tempe Apollos
10:47 AM
salaries in the league are already pretty depressed


Kevin - Evas
10:48 AM
Except for Burroughs

3

1



Sean - Kentucky
10:48 AM
Raising it would be good


Chuck - Trendsetters
10:48 AM
Okay. I'm in.


Matt - Shisa
10:48 AM
How about in future years its a supp pick after the 2nd round?


Patrick - Havana
10:49 AM
I like it as is but would favor moving the supplemental round after round 2; I agree with raising the qualifying offer amount


Yuma
10:49 AM
Or after the 5th round.

3



RJ - Sandgnats
10:49 AM
I think it benefits the mid market teams the most and should be kept

1



Evan - Underground
10:49 AM
Raising seems a decent compromise


Yuma
10:49 AM
But it hurts those of us at the bottom of the league.


Michael - Hitmen
10:50 AM
Put it to an official vote?


Brian - Tempe Apollos
10:50 AM
there's way too much good financial management in this league. we need a few wahoos going $60m over budget and having to re-calibrate on the fly to keep things interesting

1 reply
Today at 10:51 AMView thread


Mike - Borealis
10:50 AM
Hey Chuck!


Dylan - Wind Dancers
10:50 AM
I want to do the math for us, but the league that shall not be named uses the average salary of the top 125 players in the league for the QO amount


Chuck - Trendsetters
10:50 AM
Hola!


Yuma
10:51 AM
the League that shall not be named has always been bad news. Let’s not imitate them.


Dylan - Wind Dancers
10:51 AM
replied to a thread:
there's way too much good financial management in this league. we need a few wahoos going $60m over budget and having to re-calibrate on the fly to keep things interesting
Both sides sides of that statement are completely wrong


Brian - Tempe Apollos
10:51 AM
ah, if we can't change the QO amount, i'd in favor of getting rid of it


Chuck - Trendsetters
10:52 AM
I say leave it. Otherwise you have a rich get richer and poor get poorer situation.


Jaime - Kalamazoo
10:52 AM
Morning gentlemen. Better late than never

3



Yuma
10:53 AM
@Chuck - Trendsetters
What we have now is rich getting richer and poor stuck at the bottom.


Dylan - Wind Dancers
10:53 AM
The problem has been, the system is designed to help smaller teams who can't afford to keep star players get compensation when they leave. But historically, it has been a bigger benefit to big teams who are able to replace good players with good prospects. (edited)


Chuck - Trendsetters
10:54 AM
Good point.


Yuma
10:54 AM
Exactly. Yuma has never benefitted from it.


Kevin - Evas
10:54 AM
Small teams losing players to free agency is not a big problem. Most players are either extended, or traded.
I agree that the biggest beneficiaries are the big market teams. I've benefited myself.


Dylan - Wind Dancers
10:55 AM
My preferred options would be to move the comp pick back to the end of the 2nd or 3rd round OR axe the system
10:55
Exactly Kevin


Andy - Fishermen
10:55 AM
I will vote for the picks to go to the later rounds OR axe


Dylan - Wind Dancers
10:55 AM
If small teams aren't benefitting, it's not serving it's purpose

3



James - Calzones
10:55 AM
If we can't axe it, move it far enough down the draft order to benefit the teams that are struggling/rebuilding.


Mike - Borealis
10:55 AM
In fairness, I have had a few top players come from the Supp round…


RJ - Sandgnats
10:56 AM
It’s really the mid market teams below the big boys that need this help with QOs.


Dylan - Wind Dancers
10:57 AM
@Mike - Borealis
And without the system, those players could've been in Yuma, SA, NO, etc


Ron - Akira
10:57 AM
Lower the comp rd or get rid of it


Mike - Borealis
10:57 AM
That is true…


Michael - Hitmen
10:57 AM
With the way some people draft.. there is no guarantee of that Dylan


Jaime - Kalamazoo
10:58 AM
I like the idea of moving the QO amount up AND moving it back a round or two.


Sean - Kentucky
10:58 AM
I have had a couple of picks but I screwed them up :)


Dylan - Wind Dancers
10:58 AM
To note, we won't be making a decision here today. We'll open a thread on the forums to discuss and any change would happen next offseason

4



Brian - Tempe Apollos
10:58 AM
is the supp round moveable in-game?


Dylan - Wind Dancers
10:58 AM
It's easy to manually do

1

10:58
Which we already do

1

10:59
The in-game setting for what we want, wouldn't work
10:59
It changes the Comp pick round to be dependent on the salary of the player signed.
10:59
With 0 clarity to what those numbers are (edited)


Chuck - Trendsetters
11:00 AM
Would that system work, the in game system? It seems the more you pay (higher market teams) the higher the comp pick?


Mike - Borealis
11:00 AM
I would be against a system that was a mystery…


Yuma
11:01 AM
Amen.


Dylan - Wind Dancers
11:01 AM
Yea, the system is to unknown with 0 detail in how it actually works
11:01
It's so much easier to do it manually


Chuck - Trendsetters
11:01 AM
Okay.


Dylan - Wind Dancers
11:01 AM
Like adding an extra line to a spreadsheet easy


Yuma
11:01 AM
Even easier to get rid of it altogether.


Mike - Borealis
11:02 AM
I am hearing that there is a general thought that bumping the offer and moving back to the end of R2 might be a plan - question: If we are not getting a R1 Supp pick, would we then not lose a R1 pick for signing? Instead the R2 pick is lost?


Michael - Hitmen
11:03 AM
Good question


Brian - Tempe Apollos
11:03 AM
the lost pick is the worst part of the system, afaic

3

11:03
it discourages almost the entire league from signing these guys and kills their FA value
11:04
even if your 1st is protected you just lose one later


Yuma
11:04 AM
So let’s lose the whole system!


Andy - Fishermen
11:05 AM
Yes, I agree the lost pick is the issue there.


RJ - Sandgnats
11:05 AM
Has anyone like
@Frank - Amsterdam Lions
looked at the data?


Dylan - Wind Dancers
11:06 AM
I know the vast majority of comp picks have been from playoff teams
11:06
And very few below that
11:06
And hesitation to sign comp FA's is very much a thing


Kevin - Evas
11:06 AM
Not to mention we can game the system by trading away picks

2



Mike - Borealis
11:07 AM
Truth!


Dylan - Wind Dancers
11:07 AM
Comp eligible players are arguably more likely to end up signing for a top team who is more willing to lose a 1st round pick


Matt - Shisa
11:07 AM
*5th round pick


Dylan - Wind Dancers
11:07 AM
No FA signings on day 1 by the way

4



Mike - Borealis
11:08 AM
Four of the 7 potential picks this year are playoff teams - and one was close…


Dylan - Wind Dancers
11:09 AM
I'm leaning towards wanting to just axe the system altogether. Draft pick trading just makes it so abusable


Yuma
11:10 AM
Yes!


Mike - Borealis
11:10 AM
Let’s continue this excellent discussion in the Forum - we’ll create a new thread and add to it this part of the WM discussion - and I encourage everyone to add their ideas; I feel like we are formulating a potential change here…
New


Evan - Underground
11:11 AM
Burroughs is a great example of what the current QO situation can cause too, most of the other strong bat options are QO guys (they're mostly old too but that's less of a problem to teams probably)

Sean - Claymores
11:21 AM
Two more quick thoughts on qualifying offers, aren’t certain teams protected from losing their first draft pick currently? Also, if small market teams believe they’ll have a shot at a guy without the QO…this is just not gonna happen. I’d argue they have a better shot now, because the demand for those players will increase if your remove the comp tag.


Dylan - Wind Dancers
11:21 AM
Top 11 picks are always protected UNLESS they are traded away

[Thoroughbreds]

I am good with it moving to the end of the 2nd round if that is possible. I don't think that will be a case of the rich getting richer - a late 2nd/early 3rd pick is a nice chip to have but it should not affect things too much.

[Arroyos]

Just to reiterate what I said several times during the WM, I think we should scrap the Supplemental Round compensation altogether or, if we must keep it, move it to AFTER the fifth round, that is, after the first day of drafting.

My reasoning is simple and selfish: teams at the bottom of the league have ONE and only one way to get new talent without giving up something equally valuable: the draft. So if we carefully hang onto our draft picks in the first several rounds, we don't deserve to be penalized by having an additional round delaying our picks. And since that additional Supplemental Round is almost entirely composed of the wealthier and more successful clubs, it feels like a slap in the face when they get to draft some of the players we need desperately. It hurts every year to see talented youngsters grabbed up by the already successful teams. The draft is the one equalizing device in the league, and I think the league would be better served by not interrupting that device with additional advantages for successful teams.

[Calzones]

Just to reiterate what I said several times during the WM, I think we should scrap the Supplemental Round compensation altogether or, if we must keep it, move it to AFTER the fifth round, that is, after the first day of drafting.

My reasoning is simple and selfish: teams at the bottom of the league have ONE and only one way to get new talent without giving up something equally valuable: the draft. So if we carefully hang onto our draft picks in the first several rounds, we don't deserve to be penalized by having an additional round delaying our picks. And since that additional Supplemental Round is almost entirely composed of the wealthier and more successful clubs, it feels like a slap in the face when they get to draft some of the players we need desperately. It hurts every year to see talented youngsters grabbed up by the already successful teams. The draft is the one equalizing device in the league, and I think the league would be better served by not interrupting that device with additional advantages for successful teams.

I concur with Bob on this. I think the supplemental round should be axed, but if we cannot do away with it, make it the last round of day 1 of the draft.

[Apollos]

I’m not sure what is or isn’t changeable to the rules here, but since we can’t change the amount of the QO, is it possible to get rid of the loss of a draft pick associated with signing a comp eligible FA? I’m guessing the answer to this is no. As a team who likely stands to benefit from this system over the next few seasons, I’d prefer to just see it go away entirely as I don’t think it does anything but rewards teams who have good players (and can likely afford to keep the majority of said players), but more so discourages lower to middle end teams from attempting to sign those guys because of the associated loss of a pick.

Teams both in PEBA and IRL can generally be broken down into 3 categories from a comp system perspective:
1. Contenders who will go after those FAs ( and are losing these players in the first place)
2. Teams from approx 10-24 in the draft order who would sign those players, but risk losing their picks because of it, so generally don’t
3. Rebuilding teams who make no sense to sign these guys

Just my rambling thoughts ….

[Evas]

The purpose of the QO system is supposed to be to help teams that cannot afford to resign Free Agents. In practice, it does not do that. So we should axe the system entirely.

From an in-game lore point of view, the players would no doubt strongly support getting rid of the system, as it suppressed Free Agent salaries for affected players massively.

[Wind Dancers]

Just to clarify, we CAN change the QO amount but I don't think that solves or even really helps with the issue. Everything that QO's are supposed to help with, they do the opposite, therefore I'm for getting rid of the system altogether, and I say that as a team that can and will directly benefit from keeping it as it is now. Moving the draft pick to a later round helps with half of the problem, but doesn't fix the entire problem.

QO's should help bottom/poor teams to keep hold of their better players. In reality, those teams get more value by trading those players so compensation-eligible players are ALWAYS from playoff/contending teams. Those bottom teams are punished even more by having to give up valuable picks if they ever want to sign a comp player who just ends up at a contending team again because they can lose draft picks and not lose as much value.

From a player's perspective, as Kevin mentioned, a system restricting player choice and salary would have the union up in arms.

And from a general GM perspective, getting rid of the system simplifies free agency a bit more. You pay for a free agent, you get a free agent.

[Underground]

I am in concurrence with all those above calling for the axe.

The system does not really make any sense. It deeply suppresses the FA value of these players who would logically never decline the QO if they saw what the compensation pick does to their value in our market.

Also the incentive structure is backwards, as the only teams generally willing to part with a 1st round pick to sign a valuable free agent are going to be teams with late round picks, ie. the winning teams. Sure there are some small to mid size market teams that find themselves among that bunch (hello) but that is a very small slice of the league pie and many of them are still living in a place where giving up a 1st rounder for the honor of signing a 35 year old still doesn't make much sense, even if they are a playoff team. This negative attribute is made even worse by the fact that the lack of competition suppresses the contract values, allowing those big market teams with little to lose in terms of draft capital to sweep in and sign these guys to relatively sweetheart deals.

The timing of this conversation is apt as this is (another) poor free agent class with nearly all the headliners due to receive compensation picks and thus not moving. We are relying a lot on the random international spawns to make up for our market and that would be much less true without compensatory picks. A guy like Burroughs is going to get paid 2-3 times what he is realistically worth in part because he's one of the few FA batters that won't take a first round pick with him.

[Shisa]

Not in favor of a complete ax to the system. I would suggest we set compensation to a 2nd round pick and see how that goes over the course of a few seasons. There is value in the QO system to offer protection to teams as well, big and small market alike, but I agree the cost of a 1st is currently prohibitive. Lets see how a 2nd instead works out.