Can_of_corn

I think MLB's version of finding a good solution is to do as little as possible.

I don't see a team that can threaten the Yankees or Rays.

But if you do it the other way you give teams like the Yankees and Dodgers another avenue to exploit their superior revenue streams.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inertia

Why would you think that? What basis do you have other than it being something you wish would happen?

Let me go into a bit more depth. In the scenario above why would the Angels trade up to #2 if they didn't get the increased pool money? How much leverage do they have picking second if the teams below them have significantly more slot money? Let's say they want Austin Martin, you think he's signing for 4.7M? The way the draft is set up the Angels don't even have the option of throwing their entire pool (6.4M) at him.

You don't understand it? You can currently trade some draft picks. If you do the money associated with those slots go with the slots. There is no reason to think that would not be the case if they allowed more draft picks to be traded.

If you trade one of the competitive balance picks you lose the associated slot money. That's what is called a precedent.

So the slot money would go with the draft pick right? Let's say the O's traded their first round pick in the 2020 draft to the Angels for the 10th pick (a reasonable projection for when their player was rated to be picked) and the Angels third and fifth round picks? That sound fair? 1-2- 7.79M 1-10- 4.74M 82- .7442M 141- .3904M So the O's would have two more picks but would have around 2M less to spend on them. I don't like that trade.

Don't blame the launch angle revolution for Chris Davis.

Why hit to the opposite field when you can pull the ball over the fence? As a hitter I would much rather hit a dong than a single to the opposite field. I remember reading one of the launch swing guys talking about this, maybe it was Donaldson. He said the old school idea hit was the line drive up the middle. Why do I want to do that? It's a single. You know what else beats the shift? Hitting it over the wall. They can't shift into the seats.

The vast majority of baseball draftees are anonymous. Not much excitement to be gained by not picking guy you never heard of 5th so your team can pick guys you never heard of 12th and 46th.

I don't think allowing trades is going to cause anyone to tune into the draft that wasn't going to anyway.

Would make for a heck of a bubblehead.

Pitchers just aren't as effecitve over longer outings. Forcing them to pitch longer isn't going to change that. They'll adapt to the heavier workload but they won't magically be as good over three innings as they used to be over one.

But you have to do something about the ball and the ballparks if you even want to consider this. Unless of course you think a much higher scoring environment is a "better game overall".

It is hard for me to separate what is different due to age and what is different do to changes in technology and society. I certainly don't go out near as much as I did in my 20's. I also consume media much differently.

Or maybe folks gravitate more towards watching sports as entertainment as they age? Maybe the 20 year old zoomer who is going out to the club on the weekend will be watching sports at home in 40 years?

You are OK with a reliever going 80 pitches because the team can't bring in a replacement and he doesn't have it that night?

That is where I am at.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sports-with-the-oldest-and-youngest-tv-audiences-2017-06-30 2016 numbers PGA- 64 LPGA- 63 ATP Tennis- 61 MLB- 57 NFL- 50 Do the PGA and ATP have an "issue" with their over 60 fanbase? I don't know if they do but they are older than MLB fans. (Yes I know I'm citing "average", still looks like a solid source). How's MLB's profitability look? That's always the bottom line right? Older fans are generally more able to spend money and are a growing demographic. I'm not at all sure that trying to chase the young fan is worth alienating the older fan. Sports are a hard sell for Zoomers and Millennials.

Is there any compelling evidence that further changes would improve the product in a meaningful way? I don't watch the NFL anymore since the myriad of changes they have made in the last few decades have caused the game to be less appealing to me. Not everyone is obsessed with how the game was played in 1890 or even 1980. Does Soccer make fundamental rule changes? Do they do it in Tennis? Golf?

I totally agree that desegregating the game wasn't a meaningful change.