Originally Posted by Austin Kearns
I don't think getting rid of compensation is a bad idea, I just find it unfair to make the decision without notice.
In the Nats' case they relied on the looming compensation to gauge Soriano's trade value. If they knew that they would not get compensation for Soriano when he left via Free Agency, they would have been able to deal him at the deadline for some good prospects. If the compensation is suddenly taken away, the Nats get nothing for a player that they should have in some format. Based on the current rules, they are entilted to compensation regardless if you agree with it or not. It would be extremely unfair for them to lose Soriano without getting something in return when they were entilted it.
Anyways, I don't see this rule being implemented without notice. Doing that would not make sense since there are so many loopholes in the idea. A more logical way to do it, would be to announce that next year there will no longer be any compensation. There has to be some amount of warning so teams can decide how they can best handle their acquisitions.
Surely Jimbo should have known the collective bargining agreement was expiring, and since free-agent compensation is part of that agreement, he should have known it could change. Or maybe he should have asked the right questions.