The executive director for the Major League Baseball Players Association says he can imagine an improved version of the MLB draft. Michael Weiner says players have accepted the draft and it works – to an extent.
“Everything is relative,” Weiner told MLBTR from Manhattan. “Does it work for the players as opposed to a system where players could be free agents and could freely negotiate with any club as they enter major league baseball? No.”
That’s because players have little leverage once they’re drafted by an MLB team. They can choose not to sign for a year, but that has limited appeal to most ballplayers. The draft isn’t perfect and Weiner, who maintains regular contact with players through e-mail, text messaging and face-to-face contact, notes that the MLBPA was in favor of trading draft picks in 2002 and again in 2006. Weiner says the MLBPA would consider trading picks to further competitive balance when the current collective bargaining agreement between players and owners expires after 2011.
“I’m not sure it gives the player more leverage,” Weiner said, noting that players would only be able to negotiate directly with one club. “But it clearly gives the club that selected the player more leverage.”
Others, including Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated, have suggested that trading picks would allow players to refuse to sign unless the team that drafted them dealt them to specific clubs. That could give players more say in their future, though not necessarily more money.
Now, teams can’t trade draft picks and can’t trade the players they sign for a year after their first pro contracts. Weiner points out that clubs would have more options if they could trade draft picks like NBA, NFL and NHL teams.
I would support being able to trade draft picks, but only for other draft picks, not cash or as part of deals for players.
MLB already has enough problems without large market teams buying their way into multiple picks in the first round every year.
Yeah, if picks could be bought with money, the Marlins would never pick in the first round again.
Agreed with the money part. But I think picks should be allowed to be traded for players. It gives re-building teams another avenue to restock their minor leagues.
Allowing teams to trade picks for players opens up too many loopholes. You might as well allow picks to be bought for cash if that’s the case.
For example, “We’ll use our $150MM payroll to take that bad contract off your books, if you give us your first round pick… here, we’ll even throw in [a couple career minor leaguers] so you can sell it to your fans!”
I was thinking more along the lines of teams re-building trading away assets to gain picks. It would be a lot easier for them to do that than just trading for prospects. I think in the end, the system of bonus’s, weather they are fixed or not, screws up the system.
I know that’s what you were thinking but you have to consider all the consequences. I can promise you that if teams were allowed to trade picks for players, the above scenario (and others like it) would happen.
I know that’s what you were thinking but you have to consider all the consequences. I can promise you that if teams were allowed to trade picks for players, the above scenario (and others like it) would happen.
I was thinking more along the lines of teams re-building trading away assets to gain picks. It would be a lot easier for them to do that than just trading for prospects. I think in the end, the system of bonus’s, weather they are fixed or not, screws up the system.
So you want the bad GM to trade the crown jewel prospect for salary relief instead of the first round pick?
I don’t see a need to protect teams from shooting themselves in the foot. If they choose to make poor decisions, let them. I doubt GMs will be making MORE bad decisions, they’ll just be making bad decisions in a new and interesting way.
On the other hand, if my team can flip a third rounder to another team to get bullpen help, maybe this helps them get to the playoffs. The team with the reliever my team covets might not have a desire for prospects in my team’s system. The draft pick is a commodity, much like currency is in the marketplace.
If they allow this, they need to figure out some rules. More importantly they need somekind of scale for picks, otherwise the future Strasburgs and such just demand the selecting team trade them to a team that can afford the highest contracts.
Don’t they do this kind of thing in hockey?
We’d also have more Elway issues too. How many players would be refusing to sign with Pittsburgh and be demanding trades to better teams?
The Elway thing was the first thing that came to my mind too. Everyone should realize that there’s no way to create a method that truly makes everyone happy. But I don’t really see Weiner’s point about leverage though. There was originally a chance the player was drafted by the team that traded for the draft pick that was used to select him. After all, they did trade to get to that spot with a purpose. I’m also not sure there would be draft day trading to the extent that it happens in the NBA or NFL. If the trading isn’t on draft day, it wouldn’t impact the player much.
Draft-day trading in the NBA is such a joke. I understand that much of the trading is attributed to salary cap issues, but when close to half of the players chosen in the first round are dealt immediately after they’re picked, the draft itself just turns into a circus.
I agree. The reasons I don’t expect the same to happen in the MLB are, as you mentioned, the lack of salary cap issues, and also because the players aren’t usually ready to contribute right away like they are in the NBA. Even if an MLB team’s biggest need is a SS, they could draft at a different position because it could likely become a need 4 or 5 years down the road. So a team wouldn’t be extremely eager to trade up (or on draft day, trade for) that SS as much as an NBA team would want to move up (or trade for) a PG.
Yep, exactly what I was thinking. Farm systems make trading up or down for picks almost irrelevant. I could see how a current player could be traded for, say, a team’s 2nd round pick in 2011, but that’s a completely different scenario. Trading up and down on draft day should stay the way it is-out of baseball.
They would have to extend the negotiating window on draftees beyond August. Teams would have to own the rights to these kids for at least a year, much like the NHL; otherwise, the Strasburgs and Harpers of the world could refuse to sign unless traded where they want to go, and the team selecting them would be forced to trade them for pennies on the dollar or risk losing them and getting a replacement pick the following year, who could repeat the process.
I do not want to see this happen. I might be okay with teams trading picks BEFORE a player is selected, but trading players after they’re picked on draft day is going to create even more unnecessary problems with the draft. As already stated, players in the other big three sports get an undeserved right to refuse to play for teams after they are chosen, but that is NOT how a draft is supposed to work. As a drafted player, you should not have a say in who chooses you or be permitted to refuse to play for a team once you’re chosen.
The draft is not perfect, but this would not be a step towards improving it. The players have enough power as it is in frequently having agents acquire over-slot contracts for them; they don’t need this as well.
players in the other big three sports get an undeserved right to refuse to play
lolled
Should have said MLB players do too, but it’s not publicized nearly as much. Whoops.
Trading picks only makes sense if you install a hard slotting system (which Weiner conveniently left out when making comparisons to the NFL and NBA). Teams will then understand what their budget should be before a draft begins based off where they are picking (as opposed to who they are picking).
Teams should be able to trade picks for other players and for other draft picks. MLB should also remove the whole ban on trading players during their first year. The PTBNL system is silly.
However, you would need to rework the FA compensation system. For example, let’s say that the M’s have the 17th pick of the draft in June 2011. The pick is unprotected. Before the FA period begins they could work extra hard to move up in the draft 2 spots. Won’t cost them hardly anything. BUT it would protect their 1st round pick in the event that they want to sign a Type A FA. I would imagine that lots of teams would be looking to move up just to avoid the Type A penalty. This could really be abused, and in the end, violate the entire premise of the draft (bad teams can sign exceptional talent on the cheap).
I like the idea of trading draft picks but it just brings up too many issues. If picks could be drafted teams like the marlins and pirates may just trade away top picks to avoid the suggested slotted signing bonus. I think we need to cap bonuses for newly signed players, implement a hard slotting system, and then let the players “take it or leave it”. That gets rid of the negotiation. If a team wants a player in an upper slot then they can trade for it, giving away minor league depth, or other picks.
I’m in favor of trading draft picks, and I also don’t like the idea of a draftee being able to refuse to play for the team that drafted them (f**k you Eli Manning). I like the idea of having players declare draft eligibility, this way teams would have a list of players that are more signable than others, and teams could then use their late round picks to try to get players that didn’t declare for the draft, but might still sign for the right price. As for players refusing to play for (insert team name), I think the solution would be to not allow players to be traded immediately after being drafted, this way teams could only trade picks and not new, unsigned draftees.
Let’s see how many retarded rules we can come up with to try to mitigate market forces. What’s that you say? The rules we’ve come up so far have created all the problems we’re dealing with now? Well, that may be. But clearly that just means we don’t have enough rules yet! More! Mooore!
Competition in a league is supposed to be somewhat fair, “market forces” be damned. Its a sporting competition as well as a business, lets not forget that.
Big money teams already have an advantage on the free agent market. Giving them the advantage on draft day as well by providing draftees a method to hold out until a big market team rescues them goes too far, especially when as someone mentioned, the draftee’s stipulation for a particular team eliminates free competition from all the other teams in bidding for the player.
Competition in a league is supposed to be somewhat fair, “market forces” be damned. Its a sporting competition as well as a business, lets not forget that.
Assumption here is that “market forces” are unfair. Gonna need to work on that one.
So in your world without a draft and where market forces determine a player’s value, how do you stop the Strasburgs, Harpers, Drews, Uptons, Wieters, etc. of the world from only playing in the minor league systems of large market teams? The Yankees don’t spend a larger proportion of their income than other teams, but they have such a large revenue that $1MM to them is worth less than $1MM to a small market team, like the Pirates.
We saw them swoop in and take Sabathia, offering many million more than the next closest offer. That same year they gave Burnett what many consider to be a bad contract, but to them hardly matters. How do you prevent similar scenarios from playing out?
You could point to Strasburg being a better pitcher than Chapman, but getting less money. You could even say that Chapman is evidence against this sort of behavior, but I don’t see it that way. Chapman simply isn’t (right now) the elite sort of talent that large market teams might have been interested in. Indeed, there are so many questions surrounding international free agents that shying away from those perceived as being excellent may be more a matter of unreliable scouting reports than of market efficiency.
tl;dr: In a true free market for players, what prevents the largest markets from keeping all of the young talent through their primes?
how do you stop the Strasburgs, Harpers, Drews, Uptons, Wieters, etc. of the world from only playing in the minor league systems of large market teams?
You don’t because it’s none of your business. If those players really want to spend two to five years playing in the minors instead of the show, let them.
The Yankees don’t spend a larger proportion of their income than other teams, but they have such a large revenue that $1MM to them is worth less than $1MM to a small market team, like the Pirates.
Yes, larger market, larger revenue. That is indeed how it works.
We saw them swoop in and take Sabathia, offering many million more than the next closest offer. That same year they gave Burnett what many consider to be a bad contract, but to them hardly matters. How do you prevent similar scenarios from playing out?
You. Don’t. You need to get over this “I’ll decide what’s fair!” crap. There are more than 25 excellent players in baseball, y’know. And it isn’t that rare at all for lesser players beat their betters in what is always an excellent showcase of the sport.
Chapman simply isn’t (right now) the elite sort of talent that large market teams might have been interested in. Indeed, there are so many questions surrounding international free agents that shying away from those perceived as being excellent may be more a matter of unreliable scouting reports than of market efficiency.
Scouting reports are a function of market efficiency, sillyhead. You can bet they’d improve. It isn’t in the largest market’s interest to spend hundreds of millions on every high-ceiling player around. Meanwhile, it absolutely is in most high-ceiling players’ interests to sign somewhere he can play. $10m to play in A-ball for the Yankees with at least 12 other high-ceilings blocking me? Or $2m to play with the big boys on the big stage?
You don’t because it’s none of your business. If those players really want to spend two to five years playing in the minors instead of the show, let them.
Two to five years is the norm anyway. I think that Strasburg, Wieters, Heyward, etc. would still have room on major league rosters, regardless of who was already playing there.
You. Don’t. You need to get over this “I’ll decide what’s fair!” crap. There are more than 25 excellent players in baseball, y’know. And it isn’t that rare at all for lesser players beat their betters in what is always an excellent showcase of the sport.
There really aren’t that many excellent players in baseball. Even now, not every team has a player that is worthwhile or helpful for the All Star game (but they get representation anyway for some reason). I would argue that there are maybe 100 – 125 good to excellent players. The playoffs may be a crap shoot, but the team that can marginalize their flaws by playing only their best players stands the best chance of winning, which is easier to do if a team has a more talented roster overall.
You don’t because it’s none of your business. If those players really want to spend two to five years playing in the minors instead of the show, let them.
Two to five years is the norm anyway. I think that Strasburg, Wieters, Heyward, etc. would still have room on major league rosters, regardless of who was already playing there.
You. Don’t. You need to get over this “I’ll decide what’s fair!” crap. There are more than 25 excellent players in baseball, y’know. And it isn’t that rare at all for lesser players beat their betters in what is always an excellent showcase of the sport.
There really aren’t that many excellent players in baseball. Even now, not every team has a player that is worthwhile or helpful for the All Star game (but they get representation anyway for some reason). I would argue that there are maybe 100 – 125 good to excellent players. The playoffs may be a crap shoot, but the team that can marginalize their flaws by playing only their best players stands the best chance of winning, which is easier to do if a team has a more talented roster overall.
I would argue that there are maybe 100 – 125 good to excellent players. The playoffs may be a crap shoot, but the team that can marginalize their flaws by playing only their best players stands the best chance of winning, which is easier to do if a team has a more talented roster overall.
None of this is untrue, but it ignores the productivity of the next tier of players – which is not crap, but good. And as I said, it isn’t rare at all for lesser players to beat their betters. Mix in good with the excellent as you necessarily must due to the already large number of excellent players — which can only expand with the incentives of an open system — and what do you get? Not just competition, but some of the best baseball anyone’s gonna see.
I would argue that there are maybe 100 – 125 good to excellent players. The playoffs may be a crap shoot, but the team that can marginalize their flaws by playing only their best players stands the best chance of winning, which is easier to do if a team has a more talented roster overall.
None of this is untrue, but it ignores the productivity of the next tier of players – which is not crap, but good. And as I said, it isn’t rare at all for lesser players to beat their betters. Mix in good with the excellent as you necessarily must due to the already large number of excellent players — which can only expand with the incentives of an open system — and what do you get? Not just competition, but some of the best baseball anyone’s gonna see.
how do you stop the Strasburgs, Harpers, Drews, Uptons, Wieters, etc. of the world from only playing in the minor league systems of large market teams?
You don’t because it’s none of your business. If those players really want to spend two to five years playing in the minors instead of the show, let them.
The Yankees don’t spend a larger proportion of their income than other teams, but they have such a large revenue that $1MM to them is worth less than $1MM to a small market team, like the Pirates.
Yes, larger market, larger revenue. That is indeed how it works.
We saw them swoop in and take Sabathia, offering many million more than the next closest offer. That same year they gave Burnett what many consider to be a bad contract, but to them hardly matters. How do you prevent similar scenarios from playing out?
You. Don’t. You need to get over this “I’ll decide what’s fair!” crap. There are more than 25 excellent players in baseball, y’know. And it isn’t that rare at all for lesser players beat their betters in what is always an excellent showcase of the sport.
Chapman simply isn’t (right now) the elite sort of talent that large market teams might have been interested in. Indeed, there are so many questions surrounding international free agents that shying away from those perceived as being excellent may be more a matter of unreliable scouting reports than of market efficiency.
Scouting reports are a function of market efficiency, sillyhead. You can bet they’d improve. It isn’t in the largest market’s interest to spend hundreds of millions on every high-ceiling player around. Meanwhile, it absolutely is in most high-ceiling players’ interests to sign somewhere he can play. $10m to play in A-ball for the Yankees with at least 12 other high-ceilings blocking me? Or $2m to play with the big boys on the big stage?
tl;dr: In a true free market for players, what prevents the largest markets from keeping all of the young talent through their primes?
TL;DR there is more than enough talent to keep things competitive. The largest markets will hoarde as much talent as is profitable, just as they should. But that amount is waaaay less than the amount that would prevent other teams from competing.
The Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Mets, etc will probably never come in last place. Do they now? Is there any reason they should? That doesn’t have anything to do with fairness. Baseball players are workers like eeeeverybody else. The rich boy owners shouldn’t get additional leverage in the form of an ability to restrict wages in the interest of “fairness”. Fairness and competition do not require that kind of nonsense and are in fact betrayed by it.
Open the game up and see how desperately fans, owners, and players alike clamor to take down the big markets year after year. You’ll see some impressive innovation and some damn fine baseball.
So why bother having more than 6 or 8 teams if the entire sport is stacked against the other teams? Your argument seems to favor a less interesting sport.
I am against the draft because I don’t think it works as it is currently laid out, but I am interested in every team having an equal shot at winning, assuming equal management (which could be achieved through a more communist revenue sharing plan).
You think the best players in the world competing is less interesting than the mediocre mix? Agree to disagree.
Alright then. Thanks for the input.
You think the best players in the world competing is less interesting than the mediocre mix? Agree to disagree.
So why bother having more than 6 or 8 teams if the entire sport is stacked against the other teams? Your argument seems to favor a less interesting sport.
I am against the draft because I don’t think it works as it is currently laid out, but I am interested in every team having an equal shot at winning, assuming equal management (which could be achieved through a more communist revenue sharing plan).
tl;dr: In a true free market for players, what prevents the largest markets from keeping all of the young talent through their primes?
TL;DR there is more than enough talent to keep things competitive. The largest markets will hoarde as much talent as is profitable, just as they should. But that amount is waaaay less than the amount that would prevent other teams from competing.
The Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Mets, etc will probably never come in last place. Do they now? Is there any reason they should? That doesn’t have anything to do with fairness. Baseball players are workers like eeeeverybody else. The rich boy owners shouldn’t get additional leverage in the form of an ability to restrict wages in the interest of “fairness”. Fairness and competition do not require that kind of nonsense and are in fact betrayed by it.
Open the game up and see how desperately fans, owners, and players alike clamor to take down the big markets year after year. You’ll see some impressive innovation and some damn fine baseball.
So in your world without a draft and where market forces determine a player’s value, how do you stop the Strasburgs, Harpers, Drews, Uptons, Wieters, etc. of the world from only playing in the minor league systems of large market teams? The Yankees don’t spend a larger proportion of their income than other teams, but they have such a large revenue that $1MM to them is worth less than $1MM to a small market team, like the Pirates.
We saw them swoop in and take Sabathia, offering many million more than the next closest offer. That same year they gave Burnett what many consider to be a bad contract, but to them hardly matters. How do you prevent similar scenarios from playing out?
You could point to Strasburg being a better pitcher than Chapman, but getting less money. You could even say that Chapman is evidence against this sort of behavior, but I don’t see it that way. Chapman simply isn’t (right now) the elite sort of talent that large market teams might have been interested in. Indeed, there are so many questions surrounding international free agents that shying away from those perceived as being excellent may be more a matter of unreliable scouting reports than of market efficiency.
tl;dr: In a true free market for players, what prevents the largest markets from keeping all of the young talent through their primes?
Right. Teams in New York, Chicago or L.A. don’t have any inherent advantages over teams in, say, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, and Kansas City under “market forces”?
Market forces naturally create an unfair imbalance favoring teams in bigger markets.
As it currently stands, it is mostly incompetence among ownership/management of big market teams that cause them to lose (see Chicago Cubs, NY Mets), while it is exceptional ownership/management (and scouting) that causes small market teams to occasionally win (Tampa Bay Rays, San Diego Padres).
As stated by others, big market teams already have a huge advantage in the free agent market. Unless you’re going to completely restructure the free agency system (almost impossible considering the players’ union), the draft system should be designed to counter the advantage given to big market teams, to act as a balance.
I’d also like to add that the rules set forth by MLB are not forced upon anyone, so it shouldn’t offend your free market sensibilities. If someone does not want to play by the rules of MLB, they are free to make the choice not to play for MLB and play for an independent league, college team, or play softball at their local park. If a draftee is not happy with a $1m signing bonus and the team they were drafted by, they don’t have to take it if they prefer not to play in MLB.
Your opinion that Major League Baseball should be dictated by free market forces is no more valid than my opinion that Major League Baseball should be dictated by a sense of balance and fairness. Heck, if baseball is going to be completely “free market”, why don’t we also allow umpires to take bribes and players to use performance enhancing drugs?
I’d also like to add that the rules set forth by MLB are not forced upon anyone, so it shouldn’t offend your free market sensibilities. If someone does not want to play by the rules of MLB, they are free to make the choice not to play for MLB and play for an independent league, college team, or play softball at their local park. If a draftee is not happy with a $1m signing bonus and the team they were drafted by, they don’t have to take it if they prefer not to play in MLB.
This is entirely true. I dunno what my “free market sensibilities” are supposed to be. There is no moral outcry here, just basic economic sense. Cutting the regulatory crap results in the best possible baseball and likely the proliferation of quality baseball to smaller markets. Currently, you have vastly inferior products which, true, are spread all around the country – but so what? How happy does Tampa seem about it? What is the value of this spread to undemanding markets at the cost of quality? All backwards to me. I think most of you are just hung up on tradition for tradition’s sake.
If you’re going to make simplistic arguments like “cutting the regulatory crap results in the best possible baseball” you should expect to be confronted with arguments about betting, bribing umpires, PEDs, etc. Because all of these are *regulations* which absolutely IMPROVE the quality of baseball.
Nope.
The best players playing the best players results in the best baseball, by definition. (I mean, what do you think “best player” means?)
The best players playing the best players with umpires accepting bribes does not result in the best baseball, by definition, since the rules of the game itself are not going to be squarely enforced. Do you see why that changes everything and the two things are not the same at all?
Nope.
The best players playing the best players results in the best baseball, by definition. (I mean, what do you think “best player” means?)
The best players playing the best players with umpires accepting bribes does not result in the best baseball, by definition, since the rules of the game itself are not going to be squarely enforced. Do you see why that changes everything and the two things are not the same at all?
If you’re going to make simplistic arguments like “cutting the regulatory crap results in the best possible baseball” you should expect to be confronted with arguments about betting, bribing umpires, PEDs, etc. Because all of these are *regulations* which absolutely IMPROVE the quality of baseball.
-duplicate-
Your opinion that Major League Baseball should be dictated by free market forces is no more valid than my opinion that Major League Baseball should be dictated by a sense of balance and fairness.
What? I guess if we don’t establish any standards this could be true. But I tend to think there are some agreeable standards. An easy example – we want good quality baseball right? (You won’t pay to have little league televised, will you?) It is inarguable that your suggestion lowers the quality of baseball. The justification for this is that you value “fairness”. When you’re ready to define fairness, I’ll be ready to concede the point.
Heck, if baseball is going to be completely “free market”, why don’t we also allow umpires to take bribes and players to use performance enhancing drugs?
Depends on our standards, dunnit? What are they? If quality baseball is one of them, permitting bribes will certainly be a terrible idea. Not sure about drug use. I don’t really like the idea, but let’s see what the market thinks? I know, I know. Such an offensive idea. We should force our preferences on others. I’m silly.
I think you’re displaying your hypocrisy rather clearly here. “Quality baseball” is no more objective than “fair baseball”. What you consider “quality” isn’t necessarily “quality” to another. You are absolutely wrong to suggest it is “inarguable” that my suggestion lowers the quality of baseball – that is an opinion. In my opinion, having more evenly matched teams absolutely improves the quality of baseball. Watching big market teams routinely crush smaller market teams relying on leftover talent year after year does not equate quality baseball to me.
As you said, it depends on our standards. If “our standards” are to be defined democratically, then I believe the principles of “quality” and “fairness” will both be considered by MLB. Clearly, a majority of posters here seem to include fairness among “our standards”.
“We should force our preferences on others.”
Again, there is no “force” involved. MLB does not force anyone to play, or to watch, games played in their league. If you are such an advocate of free markets, perhaps you’d be happier supporting an independent league? If your theory holds true, they should eventually be able to usurp the talent of MLB.
I think you’re displaying your hypocrisy rather clearly here. “Quality baseball” is no more objective than “fair baseball”. What you consider “quality” isn’t necessarily “quality” to another.
lolled out loud. I LIKE PITCHERS WHO GIVE UP HOMERUNS DON’T YOU.
You’re not serious right? The game of baseball has rules and objectives: the object is to win and the ways to win are clear. Consequently, certain behaviors and achievements which tend to result in winning ways are preferable. This is not subjective.
You are absolutely wrong to suggest it is “inarguable” that my suggestion lowers the quality of baseball – that is an opinion. In my opinion, having more evenly matched teams absolutely improves the quality of baseball. Watching big market teams routinely crush smaller market teams relying on leftover talent year after year does not equate quality baseball to me.
With respect, you have totally missed the boat. For some reason, you’re assuming smaller markets would stick around if they were routinely crushed. Fortunately — wait for the tie in — people will only pay for winners, or teams with a chance to win. So teams that never have the quality to compete will no longer compete. Literally. They’ll cease to be a part of the league when it’s unprofitable, or at least more profitable to play elsewhere.
And there will be elsewhere to play. The talent surplus will spill over somewhere – specifically, wherever there’s demand for it (go figure!). Maybe the “MLB” will have 15 teams instead of 30, can’t predict perfectly. However large that top paying league is, though, it will feature the best baseball ever played.
Other leagues will presumably feature very good quality baseball – for less money, too. Pitt and Tampa and Maine and NH and wherethehellever will not be without quality baseball to watch – if they want it. And it won’t be the AA AAA crap they’re subjected to, either.
As for “evenly matched teams”, that’s precisely what my proposal results in. You have evenly matched teams now? You jokin’? Even with the watered down MLB setup now, it’s nowhere near even. Not even close to what it would be. What you’d have is different leagues/divisions whatever that were extremely competitive internally. The result? Drumroll again: best possible competition. Objectively.
Now what are you left to argue? That something about having 30 teams instead of 15 results in better baseball? Okay, let’s have 50 then. Or is 30 magic. I don’t get it.
I think you’re displaying your hypocrisy rather clearly here. “Quality baseball” is no more objective than “fair baseball”. What you consider “quality” isn’t necessarily “quality” to another. You are absolutely wrong to suggest it is “inarguable” that my suggestion lowers the quality of baseball – that is an opinion. In my opinion, having more evenly matched teams absolutely improves the quality of baseball. Watching big market teams routinely crush smaller market teams relying on leftover talent year after year does not equate quality baseball to me.
As you said, it depends on our standards. If “our standards” are to be defined democratically, then I believe the principles of “quality” and “fairness” will both be considered by MLB. Clearly, a majority of posters here seem to include fairness among “our standards”.
“We should force our preferences on others.”
Again, there is no “force” involved. MLB does not force anyone to play, or to watch, games played in their league. If you are such an advocate of free markets, perhaps you’d be happier supporting an independent league? If your theory holds true, they should eventually be able to usurp the talent of MLB.
Market forces naturally create an unfair imbalance favoring teams in bigger markets.
Do you know what begging the question is. Because you’re doing it. You still haven’t established what’s unfair, only that there are imbalances. A good starting point would be finding a place in the world in which there are no imbalances. That’ll be a great ending point, too, since you won’t find one.
As stated by others, big market teams already have a huge advantage in the free agent market. Unless you’re going to completely restructure the free agency system (almost impossible considering the players’ union), the draft system should be designed to counter the advantage given to big market teams, to act as a balance.
Nope. Just let it go. If there is not enough demand in Tampa or Pittsburgh to put a field a team that can compete with New York and L.A., they’ll almost certainly leave and join their own inferior but competitive league for which there is demand.
The important lesson here is that currently there isn’t enough demand in Tampa or Pittsburgh or places like them to field the teams described. People like you don’t like it for some reason, and have invented 100 retarded rules at the cost of the players to try to spread mediocrity league-wide. But “markets” are unfair. Right-o.
Fairness is a sliding scale. Obviously fairness is something that can never be 100% realized, but don’t be so ideological to suggest that things can not be made *more* fair.
I am suggesting they can be made more fair! You nuts? That’s what my proposal is all about.
“Biggest markets” just refers the largest number of people who will pay to see good baseball. Why shouldn’t they see it?
In what sense is it fair to cap wages? You might say it’s justifiable according to certain preferences you have, but it’s counter to traditional conceptions of fairness. You don’t want me capping yours.
Restructuring professional baseball according to demand will result in the greatest amount of even competition. Uncompetitive teams will not stick it out perpetually because it’s unprofitable: it’s not what their fans want. What they’ll get instead is a different league. Maybe it won’t have the best players in the world, but they can still be watched on TV and in addition you get a very competitive professional league of good players with its own championship and all-star game and whatever else the market wants.
Really, there’s nothing unfair to be found in my suggestions. It’s just not traditional.
Fairness is a sliding scale. Obviously fairness is something that can never be 100% realized, but don’t be so ideological to suggest that things can not be made *more* fair.
Right. Teams in New York, Chicago or L.A. don’t have any inherent advantages over teams in, say, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, and Kansas City under “market forces”?
Market forces naturally create an unfair imbalance favoring teams in bigger markets.
As it currently stands, it is mostly incompetence among ownership/management of big market teams that cause them to lose (see Chicago Cubs, NY Mets), while it is exceptional ownership/management (and scouting) that causes small market teams to occasionally win (Tampa Bay Rays, San Diego Padres).
As stated by others, big market teams already have a huge advantage in the free agent market. Unless you’re going to completely restructure the free agency system (almost impossible considering the players’ union), the draft system should be designed to counter the advantage given to big market teams, to act as a balance.
Balanceing the market would be easer done by inforceing a NBA style max contract in terms of money and not years. Giving a star player a predetirmend value ($20 mil as a free agent, up to $22 mil to resign) would cause agents to focus on the intangiables of personal prefernce, competitiveness, and marketability. The extra 2-3 mil a player would recieve on a annual salary to be “anouther” face in a larger market might ease the agents concern over indorsement’s in the team market, Think anyone trying to out indorse jeter in New York. By a player adding up to 2 Mil. to stay, plus increased revanue sources from being “the star” in a smaller market would be the equivelant of the of $3-$5 mil. per year of increased income.
Im sure the MLBPA would disaprove because it could potentially reduce the value of second teir FA in certian FA Classes and many small market clubs like the Marlins, Royals and padres still would trade stars away. I think it would increase contract extentions for mid level teams if value of the contract was predetermined.
Balanceing the market would be easer done by inforceing a NBA style max contract in terms of money and not years. Giving a star player a predetirmend value ($20 mil as a free agent, up to $22 mil to resign) would cause agents to focus on the intangiables of personal prefernce, competitiveness, and marketability. The extra 2-3 mil a player would recieve on a annual salary to be “anouther” face in a larger market might ease the agents concern over indorsement’s in the team market, Think anyone trying to out indorse jeter in New York. By a player adding up to 2 Mil. to stay, plus increased revanue sources from being “the star” in a smaller market would be the equivelant of the of $3-$5 mil. per year of increased income.
Im sure the MLBPA would disaprove because it could potentially reduce the value of second teir FA in certian FA Classes and many small market clubs like the Marlins, Royals and padres still would trade stars away. I think it would increase contract extentions for mid level teams if value of the contract was predetermined.