Let's talk about the new system, did it work?

[Trackmaster]

But you have to ask yourself what's more important? Raw quality or parity? I'm not talking about having scrubs play, I'm just talking about missing out on a few prospects a year. This is exchange for a massive overhaul on parity. I'm still not convinced that many players would pass up millions to get beaten up for the rest of their career just because it wasn't several more million. Baseball players make more money over a career than football players anyway, without the health risks. If a player wants to play baseball, they'll play baseball, if they want to play football, they'll play football.

[jcarm]

But you have to ask yourself what's more important? Raw quality or parity? I'm not talking about having scrubs play, I'm just talking about missing out on a few prospects a year. This is exchange for a massive overhaul on parity. I'm still not convinced that many players would pass up millions to get beaten up for the rest of their career just because it wasn't several more million. Baseball players make more money over a career than football players anyway, without the health risks. If a player wants to play baseball, they'll play baseball, if they want to play football, they'll play football.

Again-I was not just referring to 2 sport athletes. The quality of play is much more important to the long term viability of the game than parity is IMO. You can make sure each team gets average players-with no superstars-that would result in parity-but the game would suffer.

[Trackmaster]

Again-I was not just referring to 2 sport athletes. The quality of play is much more important to the long term viability of the game than parity is IMO. You can make sure each team gets average players-with no superstars-that would result in parity-but the game would suffer.

Whatever, think whatever you want. I was just saying that somebody with the talent to play baseball or football is going to be swayed by a 5-10% lower signing bonus, and that we would really only be talking about a few out of thousands. But think whatever you want. It's not like our input really means anything anyway.

[Flosman]

No, the point of the draft is that if you're better, you get drafted earlier, and if you're worse you get drafter later. That's why the players put in the hard work in high school or college. You shouldn't be paid based on which team drafted you.

That does not address my point about relative value. The fact is the 4 th pick in the 1st round does not have the same value from year to year based on the actual players available in any given year. There are times that there is no player worth the slot amount allocated at the same time there can be, for example, ten players that are the same value at some point in the draft. Hard caps do not allow for the money to be actually tied to the particular value of the next player available. I think the current system effectively ends the big over slot picks and also will force the players and the clubs to actually be more open about what positions they are planning to operate under after the draft. The new system is going to give the advantage to the teams that have the worst record but still allows the team to make risk/value plays in the draft just not on a huge scale. But this system will end the practice of wink wink deals that lead to good teams in essence getting an extra high pick by getting the player to make crazy demands. In order for this to make sense currently players will have to take less money or teams will have to figure out how to pay money to prospects off the books.