Major League Baseball pushed its deadline for a labor deal to 5pm Tuesday, bringing about some renewed hope that a new collective bargaining agreement could be agreed upon without the cancellation of any regular-season games. Both the league and the union made some notable offers overnight, with the players showing a willingness to drop Super Two expansion from their proposal and the league dropping increased overage penalties for teams exceeding the luxury tax.
It’s frankly staggering that after a months-long lockout, the maintenance of the status quo in those regards feels like progress, but there are larger elements at play in other areas of negotiation. One key item that has not drawn much attention to this point but is currently a part of the league’s proposal, per Evan Drellich of The Athletic (Twitter link), is an international draft. The implementation of an international draft would be seen as a sizable gain for the league and would presumably require them giving something back to the players in return, though at present it’s not clear just how feasible its inclusion will be.
As with all elements of a proposal (from either side), it’s possible that the inclusion of an international draft is little more than a bargaining chip that will eventually be “dropped” under the guise of making a concession. Both parties have done this throughout negotiations, presenting items known to be nonstarters for the opposition before largely backing off as talks reached — and surpassed — MLB’s imposed eleventh hour. Super Two expansion and increased CBT penalties, for instance, have both been generally viewed as non-negotiable by the league and union, respectively, but remained key components of both parties’ proposals until late last night. Whether the league is seeking to wield the international draft in a similar capacity isn’t clear, but to this point there’s no reason to believe the two sides are close to agreeing on this front.
Talk of an international draft has been ongoing in various capacities for more than a decade, although it has not, to this point, been a prominent feature of the current wave of collective bargaining. International free agency used to be largely unregulated within the sport, allowing teams to spend as they pleased on amateur talent from other countries, with only U.S. and Canadian talents being subject to the annual Rule 4 (amateur) draft held each summer.
The 2012-16 collective bargaining agreement implemented stricter classification of which talents could be considered amateur versus professionals and also instituted harsh penalties for exceeding league-allotted international bonus pools. The thought, at the time, was that teams would shy away from exceeding their bonus pools for fear of being significantly curbed in future signing periods. Exceeding the bonus pool by a certain threshold in a year limited teams to bonuses of $250K (and later $300K) or less in subsequent periods.
What unfolded instead was somewhat the opposite. Multiple teams — the Cubs, Yankees, Padres, Dodgers, White Sox and Red Sox among them — showed no hesitation in absolutely shattering their league-allotted pools, either in order to make one-time runs at stocking the farm with enormous waves of amateur talent or to sign the highest-profile talents on the international market. That approach is what led the Red Sox to sign Yoan Moncada for a $31.5MM signing bonus that came with a 100% overage tax — effectively spending $63MM just to get him into their system. The White Sox did the same with Luis Robert, signing him for a $26MM bonus that came with a 100% dollar-for-dollar tax.
The 2017 collective bargaining agreement eliminated teams’ ability to do so — presumably much to the relief of smaller-market clubs that felt they had no hope of signing players in that regard. The union agreed to hard-capped international bonus pools, the overall size of which were tied to the team’s record (just as is the case with the annual amateur draft). In essence, the more games lost by a team, the larger the international bonus pool and amateur draft pool. The increased restrictions on teams’ paths to acquiring amateur talent is now seen by the players as a major component of what they believe to be an anti-competitive landscape in MLB that incentivizes clubs to stop spending money and embark on lengthy rebuilds in the name of rebuilding the farm system.
The specifics of a potential amateur draft remain unclear, but in theory, it could be seen as a means of further limiting the ability to spend freely on amateur talent and further incentivizing prolonged rebuilds — at least if the international draft order is tied to record (and particularly if it is separate from the amateur draft lottery being discussed by MLB and the MLBPA).
It’s also unclear just who’d be eligible for the international draft in its currently proposed state. At present, players who are at least 25 years of age and have at least six years of professional experience in a foreign league are deemed “professionals” and are exempt from bonus pools, allowing them to sign Major League contracts. Padres infielder Ha-Seong Kim and current free agent Seiya Suzuki are prominent recent examples of this. Players who are younger than 25 and/or have fewer than six years of pro experience — e.g. Moncada, Robert, Shohei Ohtani — are deemed “amateurs” and are only able to sign minor league contracts with signing bonuses. The 2017 CBA, as previously mentioned, hard-capped those bonus pools, which is why Ohtani’s bonus was “only” $2.3MM, as opposed to the enormous bonuses secured by Moncada and Robert.
It’s a bit surprising to see such a notable component being moved into the spotlight a bit with time for an agreement ostensibly dwindling, but its inclusion is nevertheless quite notable — whether it’s being legitimately discussed or simply yet another in a long line of leverage plays that has been brandished throughout a contentious set of negotiations.
Why would the MLBPA not want an international draft? Americans have to be drafted and choose to sign with that team or sit out a year, but players from other countries get to choose their destination. How is that fair, and why would the PA want that to continue??
As written in the post, the prevalence of tanking has increased as teams’ paths to amateur talent have been reduced. Tying the international talent acquisition even more strictly to a team’s record, which a draft would do, is viewed by the union as further restricting the manner in which teams can build their farm — or, put another way, as further encouraging teams to lose games in order to rebuild the farm. It’s not really about what’s “fair” or “unfair” to domestic players.
Still if I’m an American or Canadian subject to different rules that cost me $$, I’d look into suing. There should simply be two draft stages based on age. The equivalent of high school and younger and then college.
Why have separate drafts? One draft, one global player pool. The NBA and NHL have success with their global drafts.. While that wouldnt stop tanking for pick position, it does prevent teams from being able to use their crap records to “double dip” into the amateur talent pool.
Would actually allow teams with good records a better chance at a solid player as it would stretch the talent deeper into the draft. If the top ten of the regular draft pool are really awesome, and the top ten international kids are really awesome, a combined draft would let the team picking 20 land a really awesome player.
Not to mention it would take away an amateur player’s choice, which probably means a lot more for a foreign-born player than a local kid who grew up in North American culture, and that would seemingly be a point the PA would be inclined to defend as well.
*Cue the backlash.
League should cap the number of foreign players as what Nippon and Korean Leagues do. I’d say 4 foreign players on the 26 player MLB roster at any one time sounds like a good number to me. I prefer American/Canadian players to foreign ones I cannot relate to. Before you all call me racist, I believe MLB should be investing a lot more to attract black players who seem to prefer football and basketball at the amateur level. More needs to be done to draw those athletes back to baseball.
Why would you limit the amount of talent in the league? This is a terrible take in my opinion, let the best players in the league. That doesn’t mean the league shouldn’t be focusing on bringing more US players to the game as kids and ultimately into the league.
Redstitch:
No way!
MLB benefits from Ohtani, Pujols, Guerrero, Fernando Tatis, Jr., Soler, Iglesias, Juan Soto, Ronald Acuna, Eloy Jimenez, Molina, Lindor, Baez, Rosario, Miguel Cabrera, Torres, Urshula, Votto, Jansen, Kepler, Kim, Maeda and Darvish.
Sounds racist. So if the Angels had 4 foreign players on their roster, they could not have added Ohtani?
vtadave, about Ohtani.
The Angels made trades that allowed them to increase the amount of the bonus they were able to give Ohtani.
1-No one is tanking for draft picks. Since 2016, 28 of the 30 teams have had a season > .500, so 28 teams are trying to win. The two teams that didn’t reach .500 (Miami & SD) both have had 79-win seasons. And since exactly -0- people think SD is tanking, the only left is Miami. And that can be traced to cheapness of the previous owner,more so than tanking.
2-Can someone explain why depriving bad teams from getting good picks, and reducing revenue-sharing, is going to make them more competitive? It’s almost as if some folks want to completely deny reality.
It’s like my employer telling me that they are going to decease my salary and decrease my benefits so that I can have a higher standard of living.
Your argument boils down to, “We want others to be forced into the same bad system as we have.” Why limit the opportunity for a player to sign with whatever team he chooses?
Of course, the MLBPA is likely to give up rights for players it doesn’t represent just like it has before – Rule 4 draft pools and slot values, int’l draft pools, caps on Asian player payments to their previous teams – while foolishly thinking some of those savings will go to MLB players when that money will go into owners’ pockets.
The owners win with the status quo continuing, and that’s basically where this is headed.
I disagree. Allowing players to sign with whatever team they want would further discourage parity. The draft is the most fair and balanced way to disseminate players. Tanking/teams not trying is a systematic issue that needs to be fixed; however the answer is not tied to the draft, per se.
The parity issue has been created entirely by MLB and their lopsided revenue model. Their “solution” to the problem they created is to further reward failure. Since when can you fix a broken system by attaching another broken part?
Why would it discourage parity? As long as all teams are working with the same amount of money, it would allow more freedom to the players.
There is already an international signing pool, there is no reason that there needs to be an international draft. If they were to implement one, it should be at least 2024 before implemented as teams have already spent a ton of money and time on players for the next two classes.
What’s unfair is the American and Canadian amateurs are subject to it in the first place.
Need to follow NHL model if Draft can stay in School intill ready to sign but if stay 4 years and unsigned becomes a Free-Agent and International guys sigh when ready to.
screwing over all the young players again…
I think the system as it now exists is fine with one exception that has been mentioned recently (limit on age when these kids can signi with ‘advisors/trainers’). The hard cap has made it a more competitive landscape, in my opinion, and teams like the Guardians are starting to reap those benefits. Signing of professional international free agents remains a big market dominated activity. If we could eliminate the Rule 5 draft and set minor league free agency at 24 years old for any player signed before their 18th birthday that we best the last straws needed to level the international amateur signing playing field
while i prefer an international draft, if we were to continue to not have one, the change id make to the status quo is to make it so that the kids have to be 18 to sign,
Who the heck are the Guardians? LOL
Where is the next Marvin Miller?
That person is needed, but I think someone like him comes around about as often as a Babe Ruth.
Marvin Miller was furious when MLB instituted drug testing. People are dead because Marvin Miller cared more about the power of the Union than the people the Union represented.
We need less Marvin Millers.
Who died because of Marvin Miller? And if you think his opposition to drug testing is the most notable part of his legacy – which I’m assuming, perhaps incorrectly, but it’s the only thing you noted – you’re missing a lot.
Every player whose life was shortened because they took PEDs. And of course every player who will die early.
Selig wanted testing years before he got it. Vincent sent out a memo in 1990 but was powerless to do anything. Miller had Fehr’s ear and anyone who watched the congressional hearings could easily see that Fehr had no response to testing. He looked like fool.
This stuff is undeniable.
That’s stretching things to lay so much responsibility at Miller’s feet.
Not it’s not. Fehr was Miller protege, Miller had his ear, and Miller was dead set against drug testing and very vocal when Fehr capitulated. And it took an act of Congress.
Those hearings showed that the Players Union was every bit as unscrupulous as the owners.
What side is everyone on? The billionaires, the millionaires (who strive to be billionaires), or the fans?
I hope they don’t get an agreement and the league drastically suffers. I’ll finally be able to afford tickets to see in-person how awful the cubs are.
If the players cared about competitive balance, which they don’t, they would support an international draft.
That they want the CBT raised by so much also proves they don’t care about an even playing field. The CBT restricts only a handful of teams, so raising it only helps those teams. It’s just BS they say to try to get more money from the teams.
Or a salary cap/floor system. The MLBPA version of competitive balance is “make all the owners spend more money and then things will get better.” It’s really just going to help the players make more money. Lower payroll teams spending more won’t make a difference when the higher payroll teams also get to outspend them by more. It will just make losing games more expensive.
The MLBPA would prefer teams like the Yankees did not have to send money to teams like the Pirates. If those dollars stayed in New York, the Yanks would spend it on somebody’s salary. When they are in Pittsburgh they are, maybe, spent on an analyst. More likely they land in the owner’s pocket. The MLBPA wants teams like the Pirates who get revenue sharing funds, to be forced to spend them on payroll, or, short of that, the MLBPA wants those funds to stay with the wealthy teams that actually would use them. They dont really care if Pittsburgh is competitive, they just want money earmarked for players to go to the players. Revenue sharing was always about payroll, and never had any actual teeth to enforce that. Another example of ownership running circles around the MLBPA. Tony Clark is like “its always been about payroll! we negotiated for payroll!” and Rob’s like “the cba you agreed to says its for improving teams. That new analyst really makes a difference for Pittsburgh. The new shag carpet in the owners office really improves the place, too.”
Bottom line, both sides are full of manure.
Is there really even a single person in this country that believes depriving small markets teams of good draft picks, not giving them any revenue sharing, and allowing the big market teams to spend as much as they want, will make the league more competitive?
Root for whichever side the fans want, but please give up on the fantasy that making bad teams worse, will make them more competitive. That level of naivety is embarrassing.
Competitive balance is cited by both sides, but it’s largely code for “we want more money.”
The bonus pool already takes into account record and thus competitive balance.
Would other leagues outside North America (NPB, KBO, etc.) have to agree in some regard to an MLB International draft? Seems like a point of bargaining that necessarily involves more than just the league and the union. Or is it a thing where it’s agreed upon by league and union, then the details are worked out with international leagues?
Professional players in the major overseas leagues are not draftable by MLB teams, hence the posting process, or you can sign guys who have reached free agency in their leagues.
What Gina said. The int’l draft would mostly be for players in the Caribbean: DR, Cuba, etc.
As a fan of a small market team (Milwaukee) an intl draft has been badly needed for years. Probably the #1 thing to help induce more parity into the league. Even more so than the CBT.
Don’t worry. Voice of Reason will be here to bootlick billionaires.
He’s just trolling. I don’t know why people continue to feed him.
Well, you’re here to boot lick the union. Both sides share the blame.
How the f-k else do I get no show job, genius?
I’m in favor of combining the drafts and just giving teams more money for all draft slots, particularly after the first round. If a team wants to go all-Cuban/DR, knowing they’re at least 4 years away, that should be their right. If they want to go all US college grads, that should also be their right. I don’t like the current system where the Yankees and Dodgers can get the #1 overall int’l prospect, nor do I like the idea of the worst team in baseball picking 1st in two separate drafts.
As for tanking, I don’t know why a bigger distinction isn’t made between perennial tanking and tanking to rebuild. One is a problem, the other isn’t to me. And the players are nuts if they think every team is going to go all-in every year. Will never happen, just not feasible. Better to have half the teams going for it and half the teams gearing up to go for it in the future. And the teams that perennially tank don’t care about their draft slot, so a draft lottery doesn’t phase them. Tie revenue sharing to records (i.e., a bare minimum of wins to get full revenue sharing) and that will get these teams to try.
The other teams have the same opportunity as the Yankees and Dodgers to sign the #1 international FA. Rebuilding teams can also offer the chance for the player to make the major league roster sooner as the spot isn’t blocked by an established veteran. The large market teams do enough to float the mid market teams as it is.
Same opportunity technically, but not in reality. Perennial playoff teams offer a better chance at playoff bonuses, which, when you’re making the league minimum, can be pretty significant. Plus, there’s the panache and history of those clubs. If they’re really good, as you’d expect a top int’l prospect to be, their being blocked is likely less of an issue, especially as more players now have positional flexibility.
And I’m not crying for the large market teams; their revenue is far, far, far more than small-market clubs, not to mention that the club values have gone up more.
Do the players want every team to go 81-81 every year? Do the players realize that many of their proposals favor the wealthy successful franchises? They will have better records which necessarily means the other teams will have worse records. Is that tanking? So part of MLB will be given a longer leash on spending while the other part will be told they’re not allowed to lose.
Are the current Astros players mad at their own team because they lost so many games before they were good? There was a time when great players coming to struggling franchises were regarded as heroes. Now they’re just fodder to be handed over to a wealthier franchise.
Well, they ranked to get top picks and then had to resort to cheating to get themselves a championship. Is that the model MLB wants all teams to follow?
Tanked not ranked
You can use the Cubs or White Sox as alternate examples, Tigers in another year. The point is the same. The union claims to want all teams going all-in every year to help with parity. It’s entirely unrealistic, and several of their proposals benefit teams like the Yankees and Dodgers, who already have the advantage of massively higher revenues.
Fans use the term “tanking” interchangeably with the term “bad”. Madman used the Astros as an example, but the Astros didn’t tank. They just got bad. As did teams like PT, Detroit, O’s, etc.
The Astros got bad on purpose to get high draft picks. That’s tanking.
They got bad primarily because their drafting sucked. Between 2005-2010, they only drafted 4 good players, and two of them (JDM and Kiki) were traded before they had a chance to play. So in 6 years, they basically drafted and developed Keuchel & Castro.
That’s why they sucked. That’s why most teams become bad. There is no magic here.
@JoeBrady — exactly correct. Look no further than the 2018 Orioles, arguably the worst team of the last decade, certainly the last five years. They weren’t trying to tank. They went into the season with playoff aspirations, leaning on highly paid veterans, signed many free agents in the years prior, including Cobb that very offseason, and held off on trading young players early. They even had a highly paid and respected veteran manager in Showalter. They literally did what everyone says the non-tankers should do, and yet still lost 115.
There’s LITERALLY NOTHING that rearranging the draft order would have done to prevent that.
Actually, the teams they’ve fielded as part of what the snarky people like to call “tanking”—which is really nothing more than a rebuild, and has been part of every sport for decades upon decades—those 2019-2021 teams won more than the non-tanking 2018 team.
So for all the hand wavers out there complaining about tanking, just wait until your team flops on its face at some unexpected time in the future. It will happen. Then tell me you want them subjected to a draft lottery.
Didn’t their payroll drop to around $30M at one point during the years they weren’t actually tanking?
It seems fairly obvious to me, but the reason why the O’s got so bad is that they DIDN’T tank.
A tanking team would’ve recognized that the O’s weren’t competitive halfway thru 2017, and wouldn’t be competitive in 2018. They started off 22-10, and went 53-77 the rest of the way.
The smart thing would’ve been to trade Machado (with 1.5 years left), along with Brach, Givens, O’Day & Britton. They’d have gotten a lot of good prospects back. They might be competitive again, instead of being on a 4-year skid.
It annoys the crap out of me that fans don’t understand the need for small market teams to tank occasionally. Small market teams, overall, will not play .500 over the long run. To suggest that they cannot tank, is to suggest that they rarely make the playoffs.
The Astros and Cubs got bad on purpose to get high picks.
Accuracy matters.
As soon as the Astros got top ten picks, they drafted pretty darn well. Why else did they get rid of players like Hunter Pence and Michael Born They were not trying to win and slashed their payroll to nothing. By the time 2012 rolled around, they traded their four best players from 2010.
What the MLBPA didn’t realize and what “smaller” market owners didn’t as well either is that limiting draft pools and international signing bonuses did nothing other than create even more of a disparity between large and small market teams. Those alleged savings from having draft and bonus pools didn’t actually go toward major league players and small market teams could no longer take advantage to sign amateur talent to above slot prices while not killing their budgets.
When a new CBA is reached will there be a rule 5 draft?
I’d say probably yes. It’s been around for a while now and I haven’t heard any real talk about changing it. It’s a way to get players blocked on one team a chance on another. It’s good for the players and gives owners a chance to find a steal, like Baddoo or even Johan Santana (1999 by the Marlins, who sent him to the Twins in a trade shortly thereafter). Why would either side change it?
The Red Sox can pay $63 million just to get a player in their system but owners keep crying poor… OK
Interesting………..if it is an honest proposal and not just a bargaining chip. I think it is probably the latter given MLBPA’s opposition to an international draft. As much as I generally side with the players, I have always been for an international draft. In fact, have always wanted international players to be part of the normal draft. The difference though would be that international players would have to sign up for the draft, be at least 18 years of age on draft day, and meet amateur eligibility criteria. Despite the noted exceptions above, The vast majority of top international prospects are signing for money that would put them in the mid to late first round slot values. So it isn’t like they would lose a ton of money. Could beef up the slot values some if they were going to be included, especially into the 2nd round where even at the end of the 2nd round the slot values are $1m or more.
Any word on the fate of the Competitive Balance Draft Picks? Because I for one, would like that gone.
MLB has proposed dropping the signing team losing them, but the team losing the player would still get sandwich picks. This appears to be tied to other aspects of MLB’s proposal, but I’d bet the final agreement ends this way. Seems fair to both the signing team and the team losing the player.
Eventually it’s only going to be international kids drafted anyway, as American kids have completely lost interest in the game.
That’s funny, because on my way home from work, I pass at least 10-15 parks that are full of “American kids” playing and/or practicing baseball.
Same here
You must have the commute of a long haul trucker if you pass 10-15 parks.
Sadly An international draft will probably have a negative affect on foreign players as well.
They said that about the Puerto Rican kids when they were moved into the draft pool. Puerto Rican baseball seems pretty healthy to me. Loads of talent getting into the big leagues.
If the kid has talent, he’ll be fine. The draft hurts the boscones more than anything. They’re not good for anyone anyways.
baseball is doing fine there, but the players are being shafted. I just read an article on this actually. look at what top PR talent got in the 80s vs what they get now compared to all amateur signees.
Look at the talent pre and post draft. Still top talent, but the volume isn’t there.
Yup, that’s why the players are on strike-because the owners are losing money hand over fist, because no one has any interest in BB. This is the worst catastrophe to happen to BB since something called soccer took them over 40 years ago.
While this is sarcasm, it’s worth noting the players are not on strike. The owners locked them out.
Right, because the players would have struck in July costing hundreds of games.
Games lost due to striking players, about 1700. Games lost due to owner’s lockouts… Zero.
Without an agreement, the lockout was the best thing that could have happened for baseball fans.
I think the term tanking is a bit misleading. Teams aren’t necessarily losing because they want better draft picks. The MLB draft is the biggesr crapshoot in sports. I think we’re looking at the wrong solutions to thrifty owners not wanting to spend.
I’ve never seen so many people be wrong. There seems to be an inability to recognize that, no matter what you do, someone will finish last.
And the other theory is that, if everyone spent enough, every team can be over .500.
Agreed. The players are ridiculous in wanting all teams to be all-in every year. The difference in records might decrease a bit, but you’d still have the cellar dwellers. Also, between having my team be a true contender for five years, then rebuild for five years, and repeat or have my team be on the cusp of the playoffs every year with no realistic shot unless everything broke exactly right, I’d take the former. I can live with the bad years in hopes of great years more easily than I can live with 10 straight years of mediocrity.
bingo. the union wanting to punish, draft wise, teams finishing amongst the non-playoff group in consecutive years is crazy. there are always going to be teams that are perennial contenders because they are well run. there isnt 100% playoff team turnover between years and that wouldn’t be healthy even if it was the case. teams lose games because when you trade away proven talent for prospects your MLB team gets less talented and another gets moreso. all sports work like this, more or less.
You both get it wrong IMO. The current system rewards failure. When you do that, you should expect to get more of it. Also, you’re assuming tanking is inevitable or a valuable tool, when in reality it’s simply a function of MLB’s broken revenue model.
BlueSkies, correct.
@BlueSkies_LA Name one team in MLB that tanked for a draft pick. It doesn’t work that way. Teams lose because they’re badly run or have cheap owners. Very few #1 draft picks change the franchise. This isn’t the NBA or NFL.
I agree that MLB needs to find ways to increase spending amongst the bottom teams, but I argue against the idea that the Pirates aren’t spending because they want good draft picks. That’s not the case.
Name one, as in, I have to find a team that actually advertised that they tanked for draft picks? You have know that’s a ridiculous demand, especially since we both know they do it. Top draft picks have actual value, even for teams that seldom compete, as the players can be traded for more prospects when they get to arbitration. Rinse, repeat. Why teams don’t spend anywhere close to their financial capabilities comes from more than one cause, but one of them is failure is rewarded. High draft picks are one of the main rewards.
I think the current international pool is mostly a positive in that in limits spending, but it allows teams to target which players they want. Big and small market teams can both play, but it does reward the smarter teams. Instead of implementing an international draft, they should instead take a version of the international bonus pool approach with the North American draft.
Unfortunately, the international draft will further tanking. The small- to medium-size markets are in full control of MLB right now and there really isn’t much the major market teams can do to push back. Many of the issues MLB is trying to correct, including tanking, use of openers, bullpenning, shifts, etc. were implemented by the smaller-market teams led by the Rays. It’s made MLB…boring.
-Tanking has been around a lot longer than the Rays have been in existence. FB and B-ball had been doing that for as long as I’ve been following sports. Even fans from 50 years ago recognized the value of the #1 pick.
2-Shifting has been around for maybe 100 years. Even 60 years ago, before many of us had even been a a major league game, we discussed where we were going to play different players. And it was the same in every sport. We’ve double-teamed centers in one game, and double-press point guards in other games.
3-Good strategy is not boring. As a BB fanatic, it is important to me that my team tries to outsmart their opponents. When I play poker, I make sure I can pick up a couple of uncontested pots, know who will call the blinds, but not a raise, know when a player to my left wants to play because he’s already got chips in hand.
I’m not sure why anyone would not want to outsmart their opponent, in any endeavor.
Joe, you’re saying that tanking has been around forever, but perhaps you’re making a false equivalency if you’re saying it’s the same as it always was when the data says it’s not based on the number of teams regularly eclipsing 100 losses in a race to the bottom. It’s a good team-building strategy, but is it a good entertainment strategy? That’s at the heart of my concerns. MLB is sports-entertainment. If we fail at the entertainment aspect (and MLB is comparatively), then that won’t be good for the sports and eventually the business.
The strategy has changed. Ditto with the shift. Yes, shifts have been around since at least Ted Williams’ time (btw, over 40% of his hits were to the opposite field!), but now with computer modeling the shifts are much more deadly. Fans and broadcasters erroneous belief is that hitters simply should just hit the opposite way is based on a lack of knowledge of standing in batter’s box against MLB pitchers in this century. Freddie Freeman, a fine hitter, basically laughed at that suggestion noting how difficult to impossible it is to react based on today’s velocity, movement and profiles pitchers now have on all hitters. He’s noted it’s changed quite a bit since even he arrived in the majors. It is much, much more difficult to hit today than it was back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, even probably the 90s.. And, btw, I’m not saying hitters back then couldn’t hit today, but they would be forced to change just as hitters today change. For whatever it’s worth, I’ve been watching the game since the early 70s
The changes I’d like to see made are to improve the aesthetics of the game, ones designed to make the game more interesting. I have two friends who are Cleveland fans. They’ve told me the current front office approach has disheartened them as fans. They recognize the team is well run, but the fact they basically have continued to manage toward the revenue sharing dollars and not attempt to go for the kill after they made it to the World Series several years back has been disappointing. That approach seems to be hurting attendance. I believe it’s a concern when teams such as the Rays, Guardians and A’s can all build decent teams without being too concerned about attendance. They’re not growing the game.
Establish the best rules, and then teams can build strategies to those rules. At no point did I say strategy was bad. A better game and strategy can co-exist. In no other sport are the fans so obstinate on not changing anything. I’m willing to give things a try if it will improve the game and make it more interesting. As much as I love baseball, the current brand is boring compared to the not-so-distant past.
While we both love baseball, we seem to disagree on some key points on where to improve.
Beyond that, I remain optimistic of a deal, but I’m not sure it will happen by 5:00.
Major market teams can match small-market teams’ actions – and then outspend them.
Not entirely. JC Bradbury and Maury Brown, to name two, have done some good work showing how the rules have changed over multiple CBAs to favor the small to mid-market teams. Makes sense since those teams have the voting power to make that happen. To be clear, I’m not in anyway suggesting the big market teams don’t have plenty of resources. I’m simply noting the changes over the past couple decades have all tilted toward the bottom end.
Question: where did all the tax money under the previous system go? Boston paid $31 million on Moncada alone. Who got that money?
I did. It was nice.
In seriousness, I honestly don’t know. My guess is the league, same as CBT, fines, and other monies go.
what mlb is neglecting is that each team trained and invested time and money building parks and training facilities. why is it ok for the pirates to grab prospects from the angels?
There should absolutely be an international draft. End of story.
Why?