Qualifying Offers and Draft Compensations

[Board of the PEBA]

Considering the debate over Qualifying Offers and related draft compensation, it has been determined that we will eliminate the QO system as well as ALL draft compensation that occurs within the PEBAverse.

Based on opinions expressed in this thread, it appears that a solid majority are in favor of scrapping the whole deal. This will mean that teams can offer their prospective FA's any deal (within the confines of the Constitution) - as in the past, but there is no benefit if they leave the team. Likewise, there is no penalty to a team if they should sign a top free agent (or any FA) and no gain for the team that loses a free agent.

As one GM put it "I say we eliminate it for three years and mandate another look at it after it expires" which I think is a reasonable suggestion.

We will also be eliminating draft compensation for failing to sign a 1st-3rd round draft pick. This system has been fraught with abuse, in my opinion, and has done very little to help the small 'market/budget' teams over the years and has very much helped successful teams pass draft capital through to the next season, and so on. Despite strongly encouraging teams to make offers to all their draftees - especially the top three rounds, we had five teams this season (all highly competitive teams) basically make zero offers (I believe one team did make minimal offers on the last possible sim) for a total of 9 compensation picks in the 2040 draft. This becomes an unfair advantage and hurts all teams - but those who draft highest in the rounds, and need the help most, feel the talent drain most. This year it's three 1st round picks and five 2nd round picks. If you don't have the budget to draft a player - then don't draft them; draft a player you can afford. Don't draft the impossible to sign player who wants a $3M bonus if you only have $1M available. Not only does that take the player away from another team, it throws the player either back into the college ranks or into FA - where you are not supposed to then cherry pick the player - right? Or even the WIL, as Kieran Ogg did.

I've posted this here in the forum anticipating further discussion and wishing to keep it for historical purposes. Barring any really compelling counter arguments, that's the plan coming this off-season.

[Shisa]

I dont think Kieran Ogg is a good example here. We bid on him in good faith, he was supposed to be an 'easy' sign but demanded 3M and since the budget debacle in the conversion we were limited on offering that.

[Ghosts]

Arbitration has opened and QO offers are still enabled. Is this intentional?

[Board of the PEBA]

As mentioned earlier - with consideration of the responses, 2040 will be the last season with the current QO rule. Come next offseason, barring an acceptable alternative, QO's will become a thing of the past.

[Shisa]

Just to clarify, it's just the QO thats being implemented next year, but the draft pick comp for not signing draftees is immediate?

[Board of the PEBA]

Just to clarify, it's just the QO thats being implemented next year, but the draft pick comp for not signing draftees is immediate?

This is correct!

[Claymores]

Just to clarify, it's just the QO thats being implemented next year, but the draft pick comp for not signing draftees is immediate?

This is correct!

I'd recommend the Board revisit this decision. I would think that teams that decided to not sign a player thinking they'd get compensation might have made different decisions had they known this rule change at the time. My recommendation would be to make it effective for the upcoming draft.

[Board of the PEBA]

Just to clarify, it's just the QO thats being implemented next year, but the draft pick comp for not signing draftees is immediate?

This is correct!

I'd recommend the Board revisit this decision. I would think that teams that decided to not sign a player thinking they'd get compensation might have made different decisions had they known this rule change at the time.

This decision was made due to what feels like blatant disregard for the spirit of play. I apologize if the language is harsh, but it is primarily the same teams every year cashing in on the system - despite being told they should be making offers to players they drafted. The teams involved this year mostly made zero offer to the players involved. That's not acceptable. When drafting a player you are making a commitment to that player - to set him free without even an offer is against the spirit of play and not something we'd see in real life. And to be rewarded? There have been warnings over the past few seasons. This did not come out of the blue.

I stand by my commentary in yesterday's announcement.

[Claymores]

This is correct!

I'd recommend the Board revisit this decision. I would think that teams that decided to not sign a player thinking they'd get compensation might have made different decisions had they known this rule change at the time.

This decision was made due to what feels like blatant disregard for the spirit of play. I apologize if the language is harsh, but it is primarily the same teams every year cashing in on the system - despite being told they should be making offers to players they drafted. The teams involved this year mostly made zero offer to the players involved. That's not acceptable. When drafting a player you are making a commitment to that player - to set him free without even an offer is against the spirit of play and not something we'd see in real life. And to be rewarded? There have been warnings over the past few seasons. This did not come out of the blue.

I stand by my commentary in yesterday's announcement.

For the record, MLB teams do receive compensation for not signing a first or second round pick and it does happen. Matt gave a fairly common example of how the game does change player demands, so I really don't think it's as simple as judging everyone as trying to take advantage.

[Borealis]

No, that's not what I meant - I meant not offering a bonus was not realistic.

Call it the few ruining it for the whole if you like, but with all the complaints about equity between the haves/Jane nots, the big/small markets, or however you want to couch it - in my opinion this has long been a bigger problem than any other.