You answered my question above in this line “At the time of awarding compensation, we’re awarding it based on that players SOT value”

- I agree 100% on this. Just make it the same for MLB players.

The argument for awarding compensation is pretty simple, and it goes for both minor leaguers and major leaguers, not all are created equal. So why award them as such?

Peter already brought up the difference between awarding a prospect compensation and awarding a FA compensation, evidently you don’t agree with that?

“1. Shouldn’t a team be prepared for most of their prospects to flop or not meet expectations?”

- Yes, so how does this relate to compensation?

“Say AG got a 5th pick for Montero in 2010 draft, then for whatever reason tanks on 2010. The next year his ranking could be considerably higher. Won’t it look silly that we awarded AG a 1st round pick when in fact Monteros value is considerably lower?”

- It sounds like the point of compensation is getting lost on you. At the time of awarding compensation, we’re awarding it based on that players SOT value. In the Montero example, AG would have lost him and received nothing in return, which is why we’re compensating him. Montero’s current day equivalent value is worth a first round pick. If Montero shits the bed, it’s irrelevant. At the time we awarded compensation, it was determined that he was worth a first round pick. It’s the equivalent of saying your Alex Gordon and Brandon Wood for Miggy trade is silly. At the time of the deal, you got what you felt was equivalent (or better) value when dealing Miggy. Now it make turn out that it’s not equivalent, but the day you made the trade is what is important – same here.

“2. A team never fully prepares for their player to leave for the NL. Most of the time that information isn’t available till a couple months prior to the draft.”

- Very true. But there’s still no denying that having an upcoming FA is a known commodity, and it lowers the players SOT trade value considerably. This is completely different than losing a minor leaguer via a trade. Each SOT team is required to have a farm system, each SOT team is not required to have soon-to-be FA’s.

I’m in favor of changing our compensation for FA’s, but I’d prefer to keep the standards we currently use (Top 10% VORP – or whatever it is), and look at each player individually. If we did it this way, not all players would be guaranteed a comp pick as high as we currently have it (end of 2nd rd). For example, I don’t think there’s any change KRod last year would’ve been awarded a pick that high. If Mo and Nathan were unowned last year, it’s likely KRod would’ve been as well. And obviously, Mauer and Ibanez wouldn’t be worth the same compensation.

With this being the case, and stats are irrelevant shouldn’t MLB players be treated the same way? It’s all about the position in the draft where the MLB player or Farm guy would have been drafted?

“One should be prepared for, the other can’t be”

- The problem I have is:

1. Shouldn’t a team be prepared for most of their prospects to flop or not meet expectations? Or even get injured (pitchers)? We all know how prospect status changes every year. Say AG got a 5th pick for Montero in 2010 draft, then for whatever reason tanks on 2010. The next year his ranking could be considerably higher. Won’t it look silly that we awarded AG a 1st round pick when in fact Monteros value is considerably lower? And while a MLB can have a down year following FA, we at least know that player is most likely contributing to an SOT Team.

2. A team never fully prepares for their player to leave for the NL. Most of the time that information isn’t available till a couple months prior to the draft. While each owner realizes there is a chance this may happen, there is nothing they can do until the moment that player signs in the NL.

I don’t think it makes sense that both Mauer and Bradley would be awarded comp picks in the same round. Maybe we need to tighten rule 14 up a little.

Mike, I disagree with your premise that, “Mauer has contributed for 6 years,” and therefore is more valuable. His contributions over the past 6 years are for the most part irrelevant. We should be awarding compensation based on the players projection going forward, at the new salary, and not what the player did in 2005 when being paid 400k.

If I am to believe what you’re writing, it’s your opinion that either Miguel Tejada or Nick Johnson will be drafted #1 this year because they’ve contributed more stats in the past, and Dustin Ackley is still unproven. The past two years are reflective of SOT philosophy, and in both years “unproven” prospects were taken before major leaguers. We were just talking about Tex on Saturday, and you were admitting that he has very little value right now. Why would someone who is so productive have so little value? Salary, that’s why.

I appreciate the discussion.

The philosophy doesnt have to be 100% consistent. It cant be because of the nature of our league.

Right now the best case for losing Mauer is Supp pick after 2nd round. Essentially, we just created a rule that will allow more compensation for a Farm Player. I don’t get why we have a rule to in place that rewards Farm players over MLB players.