In HBD, if you decline an option you will not receive compensation for the player when he becomes a free agent.  I always assumed this was true in MLB as well.  Apparently not:

Within the span of two hours on Thursday night, the Toronto Blue Jays acquired catcher Miguel Olivo from the Colorado Rockies for either cash or a PTBNL and then declined his $2.5 million option for 2011. That move cost the Jays $500,000, but it also allows them to offer arbitration to Olivo, who becomes a type B agent with his option declined.

Sounds to me  like HBD should change its rule.

Only if they put in a process that replicates requiring the offer of arbitration to get compensation in the first place.

Frankly, I think that would be a welcome addition.  If you are not willing to offer arbitration to a free agent then you shouldn't get a comp pick.

Posted by kahrtmen on 11/5/2010 12:39:00 PM (view original):
Frankly, I think that would be a welcome addition.  If you are not willing to offer arbitration to a free agent then you shouldn't get a comp pick.

I absolutley agree something like that would be a welcome addition - I just wouldn't want to make your change without it in place - just another way for someone to get compensation for a player they don't want to re-sign, which is not the point of the rule at all.

I'm pretty sure you can always offer your own free agents arbitration in MLB, regardless of how he became one, but (and I have no clue about the Olivo situation) the circumstances in which a team would decline their option on a player and then turn around and offer arbitration have to be few and far between - so I'd rather keep the system the same than give compensation any time a team declines an option, which are the only options right now.

That's probably true.  I wish the arb process was there for all free agents, at least the ones demanding ML contracts.  I know I have collected comp picks from many, many players that I would never have offered arb, for fear that they would accept.  The same thing happens all the time in MBL, like Pat Burrell with the Phillies, Bobby Abreu with the Yankees, etc.

I'm not really sure how you could do it well and fit it into the HBD model.

I suppose you could basically have something whereby in "offering arbitration" you commit to be willing to sign a player to a 1 year deal at a certain amount you're given before making the decision, if the player gets to a certain point in the FA period without better offers.

I think it would be easy to implement - much like with options, you have to decide if you want to offer your free agents arbitration.  If they accept, then you are forced to go to a hearing with them (with no chance to release them ahead of time) and must pay whatever the hearing yields.  If they decline, they become a full free agent and you get any compensation that may result.

I think WIS has said they are hesitant to do this, as the first part of the off-season is a bit much for new players already.... adding this might make it overwhelming, but also give them more chances to harm their team's future long AND short term.

I'm not saying I agree with this.... I'm just saying that this isn't the first time this has come up.

Posted by kahrtmen on 11/5/2010 12:58:00 PM (view original):
I think it would be easy to implement - much like with options, you have to decide if you want to offer your free agents arbitration.  If they accept, then you are forced to go to a hearing with them (with no chance to release them ahead of time) and must pay whatever the hearing yields.  If they decline, they become a full free agent and you get any compensation that may result.

The problem with this is going to be the logic on whether they accept it or not, and then what the amount is. As demonstrated again and again, the game does a really poor job of setting base demands. I think you could easily wind up going from one extreme to the other if you aren't careful - where you go from getting compensation for everyone whether you wanted them or not to it being impossible to get compensation for those guys who have value but who start out the FA process with ridiculous demands.

Posted by iain on 11/5/2010 1:02:00 PM (view original):
I think WIS has said they are hesitant to do this, as the first part of the off-season is a bit much for new players already.... adding this might make it overwhelming, but also give them more chances to harm their team's future long AND short term.

I think this is probably true, which is why I think something like what I mentioned earlier might be better for the game than replicating the actual arb. process. The reality, however, is that likely nothing changes, so I'd prefer they leave the current logic in place where you never get compensation after declining an option.

Frankly, the entire system of compensation is counterproductive, in real life and in HBD.  It was created to give teams compensation for not being able to afford their home-grown players.  You can get compensation from signing a player to a one-year deal, which makes no sense.  I don't deserve compensation because my 2-yr veteran rental is a free agent now.  I think we'll eventually see the compensation eliminated in MLB (and eventually HBD).

It makes sense in MLB because draft picks don't have little numbers attached to them that tell you, roughly, if a player will be good.   Not so much in HBD because we all have the same budget and, quite frankly, could sign our FA if we wanted to.   Assuming, of course, that we budgeted to do so.  Of course, there are some players who insist on "testing the waters".   It seems to me that would be the ONLY time HBD compensation should happen.