In MLB, Type A/Bs make up for the economic imbalance between teams.  I suspect that rule increases competitiveness.  At least that's the intent.

There is no economic imbalance in HBD.  So Type A/Bs just keep the stronger teams stronger.

If an owner manages to fleece a newbee or less-good owner out a stud, that owners not only gets the use of that player, he'll also likely get at least one good player for free when he's done with the one he has.

If the owner is good., knows how to draft and develop players, the cycle goes on forever.

Has the idea of taking Type A/Bs out of HBD, even though they're in MLB, ever been considered?

If there have been other threads on this, if someone could point me there, that would be cool.  I'm not trying to dredge up an old debate if it's been discussed to death.

-- T

MLB and MLBPA did address the issue last time they negotiated. Union wanted to get rid of it and MLB did consider it.  I would say there's a good chance that its dropped or tweaked to include fewer comp picks.  One problem I have is the fact that I could lose a pick by signing a Type A long relief.

I don't think that Type A/B exists in MLB for economic reasons.  It was negotiated into the Basic Agreement as a concession to the teams in return for concessions to the MLBPA regarding the rules around FA, i.e. MLB doing away with the old reserve clause.  It allows for teams to get something back if they lose a departing free agent to another team.

You are correct in that there are no economic issues in HBD.  But since Type A/B is not based on economics, there's really no basis for discussion for removing Type A/B from HBD due to the lack of economic imbalance.

I definitely want to keep the Type A/B comp. A few seasons ago,my ace refused to resign and went FA. It really screwed up my staff. So I'm supposed to lose my ace and get nothing in return? At least the Type A comp was some help.

I think the problem is when too many mediocre players are given TYPE B and players that should be TYPE B end up being TYPE A's

Posted by willsauve on 10/2/2010 2:46:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem is when too many mediocre players are given TYPE B and players that should be TYPE B end up being TYPE A's

Depends on the year. The comp designation is based on the top OVR percentile of all FA by position in a given offseason. Some years have more studs, others have more duds.

Or, put more simply, some years will have 75 OVR+ 1B FA listed as Type A's, while others are going to rank a couple of 69 OVR 1B as Type A's. Depends on the quality of 1B on the market.

Posted by travisg on 10/2/2010 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by willsauve on 10/2/2010 2:46:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem is when too many mediocre players are given TYPE B and players that should be TYPE B end up being TYPE A's

Depends on the year. The comp designation is based on the top OVR percentile of all FA by position in a given offseason. Some years have more studs, others have more duds.

Or, put more simply, some years will have 75 OVR+ 1B FA listed as Type A's, while others are going to rank a couple of 69 OVR 1B as Type A's. Depends on the quality of 1B on the market.

Travis-- unless HBD is doing this differently from MLB, what you're saying isn't true.  In MLB the comp designation is based on rank among ALL players, not just those filing for FA.  So the only way the 69 OVR 1B can ever be a type A is if the quality of all the 1B/DH/OF in the world declines to where he's in the top 20%. 

Again, all the above assumes HBD does it the same way MLB does, which I don't know.

How do they decide what position a player is for type A/B status? Is it the position that they played the most or the position that they are listed as?

Posted by strikeout26 on 10/2/2010 6:14:00 PM (view original):
How do they decide what position a player is for type A/B status? Is it the position that they played the most or the position that they are listed as?

It's whatever position their ratings dictate they should play at.