We no longer get to call people who suggest "sign and trades" morons.

by JI on Feb 16, 2009 11:25 AM PST

Rosenthal:

Relief could be on the way for right-hander Juan Cruz, a Type A free agent whose market failed to develop because teams were reluctant to part with a high draft pick for signing a middle-inning reliever.

Major League Baseball, the players' union, the Diamondbacks and Cruz's agents are in discussions to facilitate a sign-and-trade involving Cruz that adheres to the collective-bargaining agreement.

Such a waiver would enable the Diamondbacks to trade Cruz immediately after signing him. The D-backs would need to strike a deal within a set amount of time, probably 48 hours, major-league sources say. If no trade were completed, Cruz would remain a free agent.

Entire article

How long before this mess of a compensation system is fixed?

*Hey it looks like Jason Phillips is now a Mariner. Remember that one good year he had that one time?

Tweet Comment 54 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm not very educated with the compensation system. Would someone be able to explain to me why baseball doesn't allow teams to just trade draft picks?

You just don't know when to keep your mouth shut, do you Saxy boy?

by oc on Feb 16, 2009 11:34 AM PST reply actions

That's the million dollar question, really.

by seattlebruin on Feb 16, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions

My guess would be is that they don't want bad teams trading down in the draft to richer teams.

I’m no expert, but would the draft be better off if there were reasonable amounts of $ slotted to each spot?

by JI on Feb 16, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions

Like, say, the NBA?

by seattlebruin on Feb 16, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions

They could go the way of the NBA and not allow a team to trade their first rounder two years in a row.

That is the NBA, right?

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Feb 16, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions

Of course, that happens anyways

by Matthew on Feb 16, 2009 11:49 AM PST up reply actions

Very loosely yes

by JI on Feb 16, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions

Straight-up trading down might be worse...

If the Orioles had traded their first-round pick to the Yankees in 2007, then the Yankees could have Wieters now. Under the current system, if the Orioles decide not to pay for Wieters, then the Nationals, Brewers, etc., would have had a shot at Wieters.

by ubelmann on Feb 16, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions

Oh dear, imagine a world where the Nats drafted Wieters AND THEN FAILED TO SIGN HIM LIKE CROW

I’d be dead right now, quite possibly.

Patriotism, Pepper, Professionalism

by esoteric on Feb 16, 2009 3:18 PM PST up reply actions

What are you going to do if the Nats pass on Strasburg?

Or will you be secretly happy, since the M’s will get him?

It’s time to see where your true loyalties lie!

by seattlebruin on Feb 16, 2009 4:16 PM PST up reply actions

I thought I heard somewhere that it screws with the whole Type-A/Type-B formula for determining free-agents' value.

Does that make any sense?

You just don't know when to keep your mouth shut, do you Saxy boy?

by oc on Feb 16, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions

Fixed slots and pick trading would make the draft a lot more fair, I'd imagine

by Graham MacAree on Feb 16, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah, but not one or the other

by JI on Feb 16, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions

It's no surprise that this is happening to a relief pitcher

There are always way too many relief pitchers in the Type A/B rankings.

As for the compensation system the way that it exists… It makes a limited amount of sense in cases where a small-budget team has zero chance at retaining an elite player. Even then, the Brewers aren’t going to get a first-round pick in return for Sabathia, so…yeah.

Eliminating the compensation system altogether would definitely hurt some teams, for better or for worse.

by ubelmann on Feb 16, 2009 11:39 AM PST reply actions

Why not? It's insane to leave talent sitting on the FA list.

A trade would still compensate the DBacks and “penalize’” whoever signs them, so it seems like a close enough approximation of the current system to pass.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Feb 16, 2009 11:40 AM PST reply actions

Should this work out

the D-Backs aren’t getting a first round pick, and Juan Cruz doesn’t really get to choose who he will play for.

by JI on Feb 16, 2009 11:45 AM PST up reply actions

True...

…but if they don’t do this, Cruz might be playing for no one, which could be a worse outcome for him than playing for someone he’s not terribly enthused about. It’s certainly a compromise, but it could be in the interest of everyone involved.

by ubelmann on Feb 16, 2009 11:51 AM PST up reply actions

Well yeah

but it’s not a close approximation of how it’s supposed to work.

by JI on Feb 16, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions

We'll have to see what the DBacks get in whatever trade they pull off.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Feb 16, 2009 11:54 AM PST up reply actions

Certainly not, but something is better than nothing. I can't imagine they'd be getting a complete throwaway.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Feb 16, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions

I'm also guessing Juan Cruz will get some say in who he plays for by negotiating the contract with his new team ahead of time and signing it with Arizona

by seattlebruin on Feb 16, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions

Yes but Arizona can basically veto any of his preferred destinations.

by JI on Feb 16, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions

They should just sign him to a minor league deal and then release him a minute later.

by Wilder. on Feb 16, 2009 11:49 AM PST reply actions

Good suggestion...

…except that his contract would have to be no less than 80% of what it was in 2008 in order to pull that off. IIRC, the rules mandate that the team give him no less than a 20% decrease in pay in his next contract. Something like that.

This signature space for rent.

by PositivePaul on Feb 16, 2009 1:22 PM PST up reply actions

That's only for arb, not free agency

by Graham MacAree on Feb 16, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions

Speaking of arbitration, Cruz must be kicking himself for not accepting it.

by Wilder. on Feb 16, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions

Another comment on the ridiculousness of the compensation system

is the arbitrary cutoff at #15 where you don’t have to give up your first-round selection.

Say you go into the last three days of the season in slot #16, and you think you have a decent chance to compete the next year. You now have a huge incentive to intentionally lose your last games to try and get to #15 because you can then sign a Type-A with a bit less regard, since you’d only be giving away a second-rounder in exchange.

by seattlebruin on Feb 16, 2009 11:50 AM PST reply actions

Maybe so

But I’d be shocked to see this level of thinking make its way onto the field

I'd rather know a little about a lot than a lot about a little

by Sportszilla on Feb 16, 2009 11:51 AM PST up reply actions

I just don't think these kinds of things were considered ten-fifteen years ago

and now the newer-school GMs might just consider something like this. Look at the A’s in 2002 – Nick Swisher was the 16th pick of the draft, a compensation selection from (someone) for (some Type-A FA)

by seattlebruin on Feb 16, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions

Just sit all of your regular starters and play your AAA squad.

That’s the best you could probably do to try and tank some games.

by Wilder. on Feb 16, 2009 11:54 AM PST up reply actions

Or you could give 55 starts to Carlos Silva and Jarrod Washburn

vivaelbeñsheets

by vivaelpujols on Feb 17, 2009 7:39 PM PST up reply actions

One way you could do it

is that only playoff teams would be eligible lose their first rounders, and everyone else gets a sandwich pick.

by JI on Feb 16, 2009 11:54 AM PST up reply actions

I'd rather see a soft salary cap like the NBA and get rid of FA compensation altogether

For those unfamiliar with the NBA’s cap, essentially the current team can offer a good player they control much better deals than other clubs, and thus the player has an incentive to remain with his current team.

by seattlebruin on Feb 16, 2009 11:56 AM PST up reply actions

MLB already has a soft salary cap...

…it’s just that the cap is obscenely high and we call it a luxury tax if someone goes over the cap.

I’m not really sure how I feel about capping the maximum amount that teams are allowed to pay a free agent, though. If bad teams can’t out-bid good teams for elite free agents, then it seems like it would almost always make sense for the elite talents to go to teams that are already successful, making it harder for bad/mediocre teams to improve themselves.

by ubelmann on Feb 16, 2009 12:07 PM PST up reply actions

But many of the elite talents are going to come from the draft and be under control of say, the Nationals for six years

after six years, if the Nationals can offer a player extra money and security to stick around with them then say, the Yankees, the player may choose to stay with his current team – in effect, the controlling teams would be able to pay more than the non-controlling teams. Remember also that under the NBA cap rules, a team can spend any amount of money over the cap to retain their own players, which would be an additional advantage to controlling teams.

There’s a reason that NBA free agent classes are often very weak and composed of mediocre players – the controlling teams can throw all the money at the players and most of the good teams don’t have cap room to bring them in with guaranteed contracts and all.

by seattlebruin on Feb 16, 2009 12:53 PM PST up reply actions