With this year’s amateur draft less than three weeks away, the picture is starting to take shape — though it seems uncertainty largely still reigns. Those interested in seeing how the class is coming together have a few pieces worth looking into. Baseball America recently updated its board of the top 500 prospects. Eric Longenhagen and Kiley McDaniel of Fangraphs have a new mock draft to peruse. And MLB.com’s Jim Callis recently performed a similar exercise.
Here are a few other articles of general interest from around the baseball world:
- MLB.com’s Mark Feinsand chats with some unnamed execs around the game about the timing of this year’s trade activity. While there’s some indication that the feeling-out process has begun, there’s also no reason to believe that there’ll be a modification to the typically slow evolution of the market. (Last year’s memorably stretched to the end of the August non-revocable waiver deadline, which featured an unusual number of significant deals.) The reason is more or less the same as always: teams crave more information before they tweak the rosters that they compiled over the offseason.
- Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports offers his take on yesterday’s sports gambling decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, and it’s an interesting read. He sees baseball’s statistical bend as a boon for the sport in the new era of legalized gambling. There could certainly be a wide variety of broader implications, as Passan explores. For now, they exist mostly as interesting but entirely hypothetical possibilities, the development of which will be impacted by a wide variety of factors — most notably, a big pile of money up for grabs.
- Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times checks in with Scott Boras after the winter of free-agent discontent. The super-agent downplayed the public squabbling between him and league officials and expressed general satisfaction with the way turned out for several of his high-profile clients. He also generally expressed a lack of concern that next winter’s market would work out just fine for players. This isn’t the combative and colorful version of Boras we’ve all come to know and love (or love to hate), but it’s notable in and of itself that he adopted a deliberative stance. He also made a shrewd note that’s worth bearing in mind for the future, telling Shaikin: “If you want to take that analytic principle into collective bargaining — that I’m not going to pay you for past performance — then you’re going to have to pay a truer value for the current performance.”
User 4245925809
Boras mentions something in there he is against that was mentioned as FA after 3 seasons.. If I’m not mistaken.. mid 70’s it was after 4 seasons and not exactly sure when it was raised to what it is now currently 6 full seasons.
Boras is kind of humble in that article, which is different style for him, or possibly the LA Times writer made him look that way. Regardless, I doubt he would have taken responsibility on not delivering the 200m figures he was talking about for his 2 headline guys and never got close to anyway.
Cat Mando
Ironically, one of the things the owners asked for in the 94-95 strike was a reduction from 6 years to 4 with the caveat that the player’s team be allowed to match the player’s best FA offer and retain him.
ffjsisk
I like that idea, similar to RFA’s in the NBA.
Priggs89
The big differences being the NBA salary cap and the cap on player’s contracts… I think the big markets would still get who they want, but it might hurt a little more financially to do it. I do like the concept though if they can tweak it a little to make it work well for the MLB.
davidcoonce74
The NBAis awesome! I love that they have a salary cap and complete competitive balance. I mean, could you imagine a league in which the same 2 or 3 teams always played in the finals? That would be absurd, right?
Kayrall
At first I didn’t detect sarcasm, but then…..
WrongVerb
If I was going to completely re-work the CBA, this is how I would handle payments:
Every player would get a base salary of $500,000. The owners would pay a percentage based on previous year’s revenue into an escrow fund controlled by the MLBPA. Let’s say 2017 revenue was $10B, and the negotiated percentage was 50% minus base salaries (25 roster spots x 30teams x $500,000 = $375M base), would leave about $4.675B. Then the MLBPA would formulate some statistic (WAR) and dole out a percentage of the fund based on how much WAR (or whatever) was achieved.
Complicated? Yes. But it also would enable players to get paid for their current rather than past production.
tharrie0820
You took that straight from the dude in ESPN…
Bart
Is that you, Joe Biden?
Phillies2017
Its not a perfect idea, but it makes some semblance of sense.
camdenyards46
How would you work out team control? When can players switch teams? The player’s union would never go back to pre-Curt Flood when the team could just renew the contract each year.
stevewpants
Decent start but so many things left out, calling up minor leaguers during the season for one would complicate things. It isn’t the craziest idea I’ve seen but i doubt they’d attempt to reinvent their wheel in such drastic fashion.
jakec77
Couple of problems. One, WAR (and any other statistic) is debatable.
Two, it doesn’t account for value outside of sheer stats- is the player a mentor, or is he a negative clubhouse influence? Is he a star caliber player that fans love and increases revenue that way?
Third- why would any big market club sign on to that? (I’m assuming that you are taking a percentage of each individual teams revenue- if it’s the opposite and each team pays a flat amount that is based on total revenue, then why would a small market club sign on?)
Fourth, you are asking for conflicts with players. What happens when you start platoooning a guy, and now he loses half of his salary? Particularly if he is losing playing time not because of his own failures but because someone else is doing well.
jakec77
I hit publish too fast. The last, and to my mind the biggest problem, is that since there is no budget to work within, what stops the top 25 players from all going to one club? That’s just an extreme description of what the NBA already has, where 80% of the teams are not competitive. (I know that based on revenue it appears this hasn’t hurt the NBA so maybe I’m in minority in seeing this as an issue)
PopeMarley
Nope the NBA has higher ratings, #2 behind the NFL in popularity, all this despite people on here talking competitiveness between the leagues.
jdgoat
Which is a shame, because I could’ve told you at the start of the year that the final four would be what it is. At least the MLB is a crapshoot when it comes to playoffs
its_happening
That is because the NBA is no longer a sport. May as well be run by the WWE.
Kayrall
I tease my nba loving friends with #SportsEntertainment
Caseys.Partner
Four years of team control (three years cut from current effective seven).
Four million dollar per year minimum salary.
No arbitration.
This also addresses “tanking” as teams are forced to run a minimum $100 million payroll. Teams can still tank but they have to pay for the players they draft.
No penalties whatsoever for signing any free agent. Draft compensation can be awarded but no penalty on the signing team. It was like this not that many CBA agreements ago.
Everything will reach equilibrium within two years after implementation and all the nonsense from a fan perspective will be eliminated. The owners – Pittsburgh, Miami, Tampa etc – will either get more revenue from the other owners or they will sell to new owners who want to win rather than suck the blood from a market of baseball fans.
stevewpants
Casey i enjoy watching you here on this site, love it when people get unreasonably upset about your outside the box thinking, let the insults begin. Er i mean conversations.
Bert17
I’d go with a different FA/team control and competitive balance solution. Instead of the right to match an offer, use all of the revenue sharing/luxury tax money. Don’t give it directly to the recipient teams, but let them draw from the fund only as matching dollars for signing free agents or extending their own players into their free agent years. If you take away all of the draft and international signing restrictions associated with going over the tax thresholds, we are far less likely to see teams do what several did this winter (even the Red Sox, who blew past the threshold wouldnt do anything that hurt their talent acquisition operation) and the small financial drag the tax might still put on salaries the large market teams pay to fill out their roster would be balanced by the salary boost going to players who sign with small market teams.
By creating another incentive for recipient teams to sign long term contracts with young players, it pushes money toward more productive players in their primes too. To create that same type of incentive for big market teams to push payroll toward high-performing younger players , you could always discount the salaries of their own players signed to early extensions when calculating the tax (right now, it would be ungodly expensive and cost 10 spots in the draft for the Sox to extend Betts because every extra dollar he got would kill them in the tax calculation).
pjmcnu
I’m not generally a Boras fan, but his quote at the end is dead on. Along those lines, long term contracts for free agents were designed to be pro-club. Their idea. They basically said “we can’t pay you the $30M per year you’re worth for the next 3 years, but we’ll pay you $120M over 6 years, even though you probably won’t be worth $20M for the last couple.” So it’d be 3 years of club bargain, a year or 2 of “about right”, and a year or 2 of player bargain. Suddenly, the clubs forget that, and want to ditch the bad years without upping the initial years. Ridiculous. Also, the clubs new approach argues for much shorter amounts & club control. The club can’t get (usually) 7 years of control during prime years on the cheap & then declare players too old when they hit FA. New metrics & theories call for a new split.
jd396
If they overhauled the journey to 6.000 it would fix a lot of this. A model where young players can cash in sooner, and with generally with significantly higher AAVs, but shorter terms/less guaranteed could give everybody what they want