Poll: Free Agent Compensation. VOTE FOR TWO!

[Ben (Rays GM)]

After some lengthy discussion regarding a potential qualifying offer system, I've decided that the time is not right for a major change of that sort, as there doesn't seem to be any kind of consensus on what a QO system would look like. Instead, I propose a simple choice between keeping the compensation as it is (a $15 million threshold for raw annual value - if a player signs a contract worth more than $15 million per year before discounts, you get a comp pick after round 1) or adjusting to match MLB's recent rule change (the $15 million threshold would instead get you a comp pick after round 2, but if the total value of the contract before discounts exceeds $50 million you can get a pick after round 1 instead).
I also think we should vote on implementing a "mercenary rule." In MLB, you can't offer a player a QO and get a comp pick unless he's been on your team for at least a year. The mercenary rule would say that you can only get a comp pick in our league if the player was on your team the entire season, starting with Opening Day. No mercenary rule would mean you get the comp pick even if you acquired the player mid-season.
PLEASE VOTE FOR TWO OPTIONS IN THE FOLLOWING POLL: choose either option A or B, AND choose either option C or D.
These changes would go into effect next year in the offseason.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

I voted for and support the idea of changing the system to the $50 million threshold for Comp A, largely because I still think our compensation round is too long. By having the two separate thresholds, our compensation round will be split in two, meaning no two rounds will have an excessively long compensation round between them.

I'm in favor of the mercenary rule largely because I think it will help balance out an issue we currently have with midseason trading. Basically, the way we currently do things, if Team A is fighting for the playoffs but Team B is at the bottom of their division with no hope, Team B has very little use for their 6th year and expiring contract players. Team A and Team B begin to discuss a trade for Player X (who's a 6th year, let's say). Player X's value to Team B is really just the value of a comp pick. But under the current rule, Team A has no problem compensating Team B for the loss of their comp pick, because Team A will get that same comp pick as well. So Team A gives Team B a prospect with similar value to the comp pick, Team B is happy because they had no use for player x anyway, but Team A now gets a player to help them out the rest of the season AND recoups the value of whatever they gave up in the trade through the comp pick. The rich (Team A) get richer.

By implementing the Mercenary Rule, the teams are on equal footing when working out the trade. Team A doesn't end up getting something for nothing, because they no longer get to recoup the value of the player given up through the draft. If they want Player X and the present value that comes with him, they need to give up a bit of future value without chance of getting it back. Both teams give something up, and both teams get something.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

To be clear, it's either a pick in Comp A OR a pick in Comp B. You do not receive both.
You receive a pick in Comp A (after Round 1) if the player's total salary (before discounts) exceeds $50 million.
You receive a pick in Comp B (after Round 2) if the player's annual salary (before discounts) exceeds $15 million but his total salary does not exceed $50 million.

[Brian (Blue Jays GM)]

I voted for keeping compensation as is (only 1 comp round) for the sake of simplicity. I think the mercenary rule will effectively reduce the number of comp picks, which was the desired outcome of evaluating these potential rule changes.

[Zac (Former Marlins GM)]

I agree the mercenary rule helps reduce the number of comps and also creates a challenge teams won't be able to stock up on comp picks as easily.

I also agree with the compensation changes. It helps spread out the comp picks. That way, if you don't have any Comp A picks or a 1st rounder...you don't have a million picks before your 2nd round pick.

Anything that makes it as close to MLB as possible, I am in favor of.

[Rob (Rockies GM)]

Love the mercenary rule, personally. Otherwise trades at the deadline get lopsided as people don't always remember the compensation piece. Rich get richer, as Ben said.

[Micah (White Sox GM)]

I am torn on the mercenary rule. Seems like any time I have negotiated in-season deals involving potential free agents, the comp pick always comes up as part of the negotiation. The team with the player says they need more than the value of a comp pick to trade the player. The team acquiring the player says ok because he gets the comp pick back. Now the team with the player says I need more than the comp pick, since I'm going to get the comp pick anyhow. The acquiring team says never mind, that's too expensive now.

On the other hand, I am leaning towards voting for it, because sometimes it is difficult to predict if the player will get a comp pick or not, and now these trades will be on equal footing. And also it would probably limit the amount of comp picks that are necessary.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Dec 16, 2016 9:09:32 GMT -5 Micah (White Sox GM) said:

I am torn on the mercenary rule. Seems like any time I have negotiated in-season deals involving potential free agents, the comp pick always comes up as part of the negotiation. The team with the player says they need more than the value of a comp pick to trade the player. The team acquiring the player says ok because he gets the comp pick back. Now the team with the player says I need more than the comp pick, since I'm going to get the comp pick anyhow. The acquiring team says never mind, that's too expensive now.

On the other hand, I am leaning towards voting for it, because sometimes it is difficult to predict if the player will get a comp pick or not, and now these trades will be on equal footing. And also it would probably limit the amount of comp picks that are necessary.

I think this is a good thing though. The player going to the acquiring team is going to make a significant impact in the playoff race and in the playoffs themselves, and is going to make the selling team even weaker (which also could affect playoff races). The acquiring team should have to give up something significant for that player, not something that they'll simply recoup with the comp pick.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

"I thought about it more - my issue was based on the idea that if a player has more value for team1 vs team2 based on the fact that it can be cashed in for a comp pick, it would screw with the economics of a trade. But the economics are already screwed up because the value of the player for the second half of the season is already only existent for the better team."
Just quoting a GM who was initially against the mercenary rule but changed his mind, and I think put this better than I could have.

I really think the mercenary rule should be implemented. The comp pick system was not designed to allow teams to acquire a mid-season boost to their playoff chances AND profit with a comp pick. You should be compensated for the fact that a cornerstone piece of your franchise is departing for more money, not for being one of those same rich teams, poaching players from non-contenders and then profiting from their departure!

[jamie]

I've been thinking about this - at first I was against the merc rule because it meant that if a player has more value for team1 vs team2 based on the fact it can be cashed in for a comp pick, it would screw with the economics of a trade (net loss for the trade vs. zero-sum). But the economics are already screwed up because the value of the player for the second half of the season is already only existent for the better team, so the merc rule would help to balance the value being given/received by the two teams, so I'm for it.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

With an overwhelming majority voting to adjust compensation to two thresholds, and a solid majority including half the league voting for the mercenary rule, this poll is closed. Starting next offseason, a raw salary of $15 million per year will result in a Comp B pick, with that pick upgraded to Comp A if the total salary exceeds $50 million.
Starting with players traded DURING THE 2017 SEASON, you must own a player on opening day and keep them throughout the season in order to earn a comp pick for them.