The Reds have drawn the first competitive balance selection in the 2016 draft, as Cash Kruth of MLB.com reports. While the precise draft slots remain to be determined, Cincinnati will pick after the conclusion of the first round (including compensation choices).
Here is the order of the selections, which were determined by lottery between the clubs that fell among the ten smallest markets and/or the ten smallest revenue pools league-wide. Other teams that participate in revenue sharing are also eligible, but only for the second round.
Round A (selections occur after first round)
1. Reds
2. Athletics
3. Rockies
4. Diamondbacks
5. Marlins
6. Pirates
Round B (selections occur after second round)
1. Padres
2. Indians
3. Twins
4. Brewers
5. Orioles
6. Rays
These results mean that the Cardinals, Royals, and Mariners failed to receive a pick despite being eligible. With some restrictions, the picks can be traded — and increasingly have been in recent seasons. You can take a look at this year’s draft results and slot values to get an idea of the range of selections (and drafted players) that the most recent competitive balance awards ultimately represented.
This is the worst part of the draft for me. Mostly because it doesn’t make a ton of sense. The Marlins can afford to have a 300M+ outfielder but they need a free draft pick for being a smaller market? Sorry if I don’t exactly think thats right.
Yeah I agree at this point if any bone is to be thrown it should be they have a lottery for larger draft pools, not more picks.
and i think the marlins have traded their pick both years i guess because they preferred an actual player to spending good bonus money on a draft pick.
still seems weird that the cardinals are elgible for competitive balance picks.
No Cardinals? Hallelujah!
The Astros hacked the lottery to make sure the Cards didn’t get a pick
No kidding. I’d like to know in what logical way they are among the 10 smallest markets when all things are considered.
Well, the Cardinals have been 2nd in the league in attendance for the past 3 years, including this year, and they have a $121,824,722 payroll this year.
Guess MLB threw logic out the window when they came up with this!
The whole idea of this compensation system is dumb. San Diego and Oakland get compensation despite playing in 2 of the countries’ largest cities (San Jose is in there…the whole Bay Area should be large enough to support 2 teams). Giving compensation to owners who don’t spend money is a bad incentive. Giving it to teams who aren’t run well is a bad incentive. Population and (as you point out) payroll doesn’t appear to be the driving factor. Just increase the luxury tax!
I’d agree on the whole compensation pick thought…but Oakland hardly shares the bay area. Polling shows that the A’s arent even the most popular team in Alameda County
I’m not sure popularity should be the same as market size though. Isn’t it about the pool of people you should be reasonably expected to draw from? If you’re not popular, that’s on you. Why should unpopular teams have a right to their existence (at least in that city)?
Oakland is 90 minutes from San Jose.
You might want to try traveling a different route. According to some popular online map sites, San Jose to Oakland Coliseum is only 45 minutes.
Not to mention shared media revenue of 120m I believe…and Cardinal nation to proclaims itself globally
Glad the Cardinals don’t get a pick this year… any team that regularly makes the playoffs clearly doesn’t need the help.
Why not a scenario where won/loss record over a certain season period is the basis for the competitive balance picks.
Provides incentive to tank.
Maybe on the part of the front office but the players on the field have no incentive to loose games for draft picks
Doesn’t stop NBA tanking.
NBA has more game certainty win loss wise..NBA teams immediately, benefit from drawing a lottery pick.
You’d have to seriously tank seasons for like 5 maybe…and it’d cut into most teams profits who aren’t the Cubs basically. Baseball is harder to tank than other sports. I’d put it on a lengthy average
Fair point. I’m not sure having a bad team is the disadvantage that should be structurally addressed. Disparity in TV revenue, I would say, is unfair. Disparity in record because you draft poorly and sign too many pricey free agents is not.
I think win/loss records amongst eligible teams ought to be considered… but not just win/loss records among all teams.
No reason to give Boston a competitive balance pick when they are able to handing out $200 million worth of contracts after a down year, or anytime.
But St. Louis definitely shouldn’t be eligible, and maybe not even KC, at least for this year.
Two questions: (1) Is the system meant to even the playing field in lieu of a salary cap, and (2) What do we want the competitive balance system to do? If it’s meant to even the financial playing field, a team’s record should have nothing to do with its receipt of a pick. If we want the picks to help even out the play on the field, I’m not sure handing out extra picks to bad decision-makers, especially those with money (Boston, Philadelphia), is a good idea.
No complaints on the Mariners getting a pick in this thread, even though they have a higher payroll (and going up) than the Cardinals.
But we’re sure the only reason we complain about St. Louis getting a pick is because they’re not a small market.
Or people don’t like the Cardinals getting one because they make the playoffs year after year…
So we’re confusing success with market size? Never would have guessed.
I don’t care if the Cardinals get one extra pick every few years, I don’t think the team will fall apart without it.
What really needs to be done is a true revenue sharing system. The one in place is not even close to sufficient. But the large market owners would rather goofy things like this than let the small market teams cut into their pie.
All teams I believe share about $120m in media revenue. Most teams can pay an MLB roster without ever hitting their own till
That sounds pretty straight forward and simple if payrolls were the only thing teams had to pay. Also, if there wasn’t a huge difference in the local TV deals. If you don’t think the large markets have a huge advantage over small markets, you’re kidding yourself.
I think what it is at this point is the “have mores” and “have extremely mores”… Not too many teams hurting
It’s also hard (for me, anyway; even though it might be a weird/silly argument) to consider Seattle a small market when they’re the only team in the northwest. I get that fewer people live up there, but the closest team to Seattle is 800 miles away. There’s not much competition.
There not though. If you read the mlb.com article, the Mariners,Twins, and Orioles and are only eligible because they receive money from revenue sharing, and they are only eligible for a second round pick. Everyone else is either there because of what is the defined market size or total revenue.
According to Forbes, the Cardinals have the 7th largest revenues in MLB at $294 million/season. What competitive disadvantage do they have exactly?
Well the Reds have the best pick in the draft. They will probably try and trade the pick, but they will wait until the day of the draft just to “maximize value.”
Every pick should be able to be traded along with slot bonuses. Think of all sports talk radio conversational ranking tgat could go on. It’s all about ratings and $$$$$$$
especially when you have teams with a top pick that they are supposed to pay 5+ million bucks for even if there is no player worthy of that payout, like this year
The amatuer draft was instituted to help with competitive balance after the Yankees basically ran the game from the late 40’s into the late 60’s
It is a joke the Marlins are there. MLB should force their owner out.