1. On Jarman: BAL is more pitcher friendly than ATL. I do think Jarman is better than his numbers have shown in the past, but I believe the sandbox of Camden Yards is what's remembered for how the park plays and not the current nuetral park. And maybe he'll eventually play up to Ace level, but he's no Ace right now. His BB/9 and HR/9 do him in too much to be considered among the elite.
2. On CLE Dealing Players Away: It's simply re-shuffling talents around. I picked up Fernandes in hopes of trading Littlewood and once I did, it allowed me the flexibility to add Tavin.
3. On Littlewood: I think suggesting he can't replicate last year's numbers is a bit misplaced. 2061 wasn't even his best season to date. He's established himself as a .255 hitter, 30 doubles, 25-30 homers, and walking around 60 times. He could certainly underperform, but I think it's reasonable to feel good about him putting up a good season.
4. On Tavin: I found it interesting that Everett Daskal wasn't mentioned. I think he's more valuable than the pick. He has a nice vitals skillset and his peak doesn't fall much when he ages, so he should have plenty of time to develop.
5. On Type B Compensation: Over the past few seasons I've noticed a surge in Type B players not just signed, but even offered Fallback. I went to Andy before the 2061 season with my findings and he too had been watching this, but wanted to wait another offseason before making a change.
Why didn't we say anything to the league? It can compromise integrity of re-siginings and free agency signings. If people know the end could be coming, then why not get one last hurrah in?
Some people were concerned with Type A going to 16M/2 and how it would affect re-signing and free angecy. As it's turned out, it hasn't caused free agency to be terrible and GMs deciding to re-sign players. The Type A change didn't make a huge impact, but it got rid of unworthy players netting GMs good picks. This is the same as what the Type B change will do.
As far as compromising any integrity I think you are completely off base. If could have (and still should be) talked about. All there needs to be is final decision made before re-signings are due. This would ensure no last hurrah because the effect would be taking place immediately.
ReplyDeleteAgain way off base on the type a thing. Nerfing type A was never going to change who was put back into FA. All it was going to do is make those lower tier type A's to being comp'd with type B instead. However I don't think we are going to see the same knock on effect. Instead since there would be no reward as type c compensation isn't a thing, instead these players may not hit FA at all. Some will and some won't but there wasn't any need to find out over a perceived notion that so and so doesn't deserve to comp'd.
My problem is with the central premise that this "surge" in Type B players being offered fallback is a problem that needs to be fixed. Why? I can see some merit in tweaking Type A, but even that is a matter of conjecture as to whether an excessive number of unworthy players "got GM's good picks" It is subjective as to what is unworthy and also doesn't take into account the wide disparity between draft classes from year to year. Some years, it just doesn't matter as a draft class can suck that bad. Matty does a great job of spotting a trend but give us a map as to why this Type B thing is especially important to competitive balance? Not so much. I think this is minutiae mining and not terribly dire if you believe in the market lifting all boats.
ReplyDeleteMessage above is by Warpriest and I'll own every word of it.
ReplyDeleteIt's real simple, is this how you want compensation to be? To wipe out the entire third round or half of it?
ReplyDeleteCompensation should encourage better FA, but the players going should be worthy of it too. There is a balance between offering comp and not flooding the draft. Adding a second year to Type B only ensures that we are flooding the draft with comp picks for players worthy of it.