From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose)
Subject: Re: Free agents - who can leave, & what teams might gain?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 10:38:24 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

On the question of football developing a compensation system like baseball:

To be honest, the Plan B system isn't as comparable to MLB's free agency 
system as it is to the Rule V draft in baseball.  In fact, it's less restrictive
than baseball's system!  That's why I supported Plan B...I felt that the
players' contentions were misrepresentative of the situation.

Now, it seems to me that free agency needs the compensation system to be
equitable, and put into place so that teams will use the system.  This lets out
the NHL's (non)system, which can easily wind up making a signing team worse,
and the NBA's system, which is flawed mostly due to the salary cap crunch.

Therefore, MLB's free agency system is the best model for football to look at.

But.

Giving up a first rounder in baseball isn't nearly as bad as giving up one in
football, the Redskins nonwithstanding.  For example, while the compensation 
system in baseball has netted Mark Langston (for Bill Stein), Wally Joyner, (for
Don Baylor), and Todd Zeile (for Ivan DeJesus), the system has also resulted in
picks like Frank Castro (for Dave Winfield), Dan Lamar (for Pete Rose), and Nate
Minchey (for Andre Dawson).  There is a risk inherent in forecasting prospects
in MLB that makes the signing of a free agent worthwhile.

In football, however, the risk is lessened.  Question: how many first round
picks last year have NOT made the roster?  How many from the last 5 years have
not played at least a season in the NFL?  To grant a first round pick in the
NFL is kind of like allowing a team who gives up a free agent to pick up any
player from the signing teams' AAA club.  Are GMs really going to make that
kind of a tradeoff?  They might for the Keith Jacksons of the world, but what
about the Ken Whisenhunts?

My proposal is this:  Set up a sliding scale for players.  All-Pro selections
worth, say, a second round pick.  Other players who start 12 games, a third
round pick.  Anyone else, a fourth rounder.  Keep Plan B, with free agents not
counting against the limit.  Cut the Plan B limit to 28.  Only allow teams to
sign players if they have a draft choice to pick up.  They lose their first
choice in a given round for a player, to be frozen one week before the draft.
Heck, for All-Pros, make it a second and a fifth.  This way, it puts a limit on
the number of players who can be signed, while still keeping the option an
attractive one.  Since one team can't stock up on a great number of players, it
levels the playing field somewhat, as teams which lose free agents are more set
to enter the free agent market themselves.  Interesting trade idea: a team 
trades its first round pick for a second round pick the same year so it can
afford to sign a high-priced free agent.

I think that this idea would also serve to a) raise the overall salary level,
while b) reducing the amount of money paid to unproven rookies, since a team
could sign a proven veteran for less cost, in terms of draft picks and salary.

I think you'd see the trade come back in vogue more than it ever has been in 
football, as teams realize they can part with a certain player in a trade, get
the man they want (who's under contract), and then plug the hole with a free
agent.

Who'd win?  The teams in the previous post.  I think, however, that the system
for compensation I've outlined would restrict the flow of ALL big money free
agents to the big-market teams. 

Any comments?

-- 
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) * kbos@carina.unm.edu * Make..oh, you know.---
-"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is--
--no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors.  The cause of the other-
---half can be attributed to playing Jose Offerman at short." - John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro