International Draft

[weams]

Manfred tells Passan that he is still "one hundred percent" in favor of adding an international draft in the future. "I just think you've got to follow the fundamentals on this one," Manfred explained. "Getting into a single method of entry into the industry will be the most effective in terms of promoting competitive balance." Manfred didn't commit to a firm timeline in terms of implementing the draft, but Manfred has spoken in the past about the fact that the influx of high-priced Cuban free agents has "put a stress test" on the international bonus system that was collectively bargained in the last wave of negotiations. While adding an international draft in the upcoming CBA is an ambitious goal, it doesn't strike me as far-fetched to have a framework drawn up for the following round of negotiations.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/manfred-on-international-draft-expansion-dh-cba.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/q-a--mlb-commissioner-rob-manfred-152718272.html

[Can_of_corn]

It's inevitable. When two sides are collectively bargaining over a third party's fate and neither side has any reason to defend that third party's rights then the third party is doomed. Just like when the Union traded away US draftees rights.

Doesn't mean it is good for the game.

[DrungoHazewood]

Whenever I see the term "competitive balance" I immeditely substitute "salary restraint".

Funny that the owners still shout about the desperate need to bring more competitive balance to MLB after a 2015 that had the most parity in history and the small market Royals won the Series while the Sox finished last and the Yanks lost the play-in game.

[Stotle]

It's inevitable. When two sides are collectively bargaining over a third party's fate and neither side has any reason to defend that third party's rights then the third party is doomed. Just like when the Union traded away US draftees rights.

Doesn't mean it is good for the game.

Whenever I see the term "competitive balance" I immeditely substitute "salary restraint".

Funny that the owners still shout about the desperate need to bring more competitive balance to MLB after a 2015 that had the most parity in history and the small market Royals won the Series while the Sox finished last and the Yanks lost the play-in game.

We could just let the free market reign, and watch the Dodgers/Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs/etc. buy the best 10-20 amateurs every year. That'd be swell for the game, but at least the teenagers would be able to get several more million than they are already receiving. It's important to make sure they are millionaires multiple times over before throwing a single inning of professional ball.

[DrungoHazewood]

I'd like to know what's going to happen if they try to use an international draft to severely restrict salaries or bonuses. At some point it's going to look a lot more lucrative for at least some international players to go to Japan or Korea or Taiwan rather than take 2nd-round slot from MLB.

And when they say "single point of entry into the industry" they mean for 16-22 year old amateurs, right? They're not suggesting a Cepedes or a Darvish or a Kim or an Uehara would be drafted?

[Stotle]

I'd like to know what's going to happen if they try to use an international draft to severely restrict salaries or bonuses. At some point it's going to look a lot more lucrative for at least some international players to go to Japan or Korea or Taiwan rather than take 2nd-round slot from MLB.

And when they say "single point of entry into the industry" they mean for 16-22 year old amateurs, right? They're not suggesting a Cepedes or a Darvish or a Kim or an Uehara would be drafted?

I think everyone is served by entry salaries being limited in some form that makes the players accessible to all organizations. I don't think they can limit salaries of certain player profiles (Darvish) -- it would just result in those players not coming to the US.

[DrungoHazewood]

We could just let the free market reign, and watch the Dodgers/Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs/etc. buy the best 10-20 amateurs every year. That'd be swell for the game, but at least the teenagers would be able to get several more million than they are already receiving. It's important to make sure they are millionaires multiple times over before throwing a single inning of professional ball.

You mean how the Yanks got Brooks and Palmer and Boog and Wally Bunker and Milt Pappas prior to the draft?

Is it so much more proper that ARod and Chris Davis get $100s of millions than highly regarded youngsters get a few $million more? The whole reason they are trying to limit this is they can. Current players will always use their union to siphon money into their pockets and out of non-members.

[Stotle]

You mean how the Yanks got Brooks and Palmer and Boog and Wally Bunker and Milt Pappas prior to the draft?

Is it so much more proper that ARod and Chris Davis get $100s of millions than highly regarded youngsters get a few $million more? The whole reason they are trying to limit this is they can. Current players will always use their union to siphon money into their pockets and out of non-members.

Brooks/Palmer. Good, timely example. You're the historian; remind me how the Yankees racked-up all of their championships. It had nothing to do with having a built-in advantage as far as attracting players, right? The organization was just way better than every single organization in the game when it came to scouting and creating a welcoming clubhouse atmosphere...

How about we look at the current international market and hypothesize about what teams would be paying US draft-eligibles, who are generally seen as much lower risk. Who's the first 18 year old you believe Baltimore will give a $10 MM bonus? How about $15MM? $20MM?

[DrungoHazewood]

I think everyone is served by entry salaries being limited in some form that makes the players accessible to all organizations. I don't think they can limit salaries of certain player profiles (Darvish) -- it would just result in those players not coming to the US.

I'd rather balance revenues than cap salaries. Caps are hailed as necessary for competitive balance when their main purpose is to transfer assets from players to owners. Just like the draft.

[weams]

And when they say "single point of entry into the industry" they mean for 16-22 year old amateurs, right? They're not suggesting a Cepedes or a Darvish or a Kim or an Uehara would be drafted?

Ultimately, that is the intention.

[DrungoHazewood]

Brooks/Palmer. Good, timely example. You're the historian; remind me how the Yankees racked-up all of their championships. It had nothing to do with having a built-in advantage as far as attracting players, right? The organization was just way better than every single organization in the game when it came to scouting and creating a welcoming clubhouse atmosphere...

How about we look at the current international market and hypothesize about what teams would be paying US draft-eligibles, who are generally seen as much lower risk. Who's the first 18 year old you believe Baltimore will give a $10 MM bonus? How about $15MM? $20MM?

The Yanks racked up their championships by having massive revenues. We can thank the game's founding fathers and their insistance on a closed league structure with territorial rights.

I assume teams would be mostly rational in their budget allocations. So current players would probably get less money in a draft-less world.

[Stotle]

The Yanks racked up their championships by having massive revenues. We can thank the game's founding fathers and their insistance on a closed league structure with territorial rights.

I assume teams would be mostly rational in their budget allocations. So current players would probably get less money in a draft-less world.

Thankfully the Yankees/Dodgers/Red Sox/etc. don't have massive revenues relative to other teams in the league today. I guess you're right -- no issue here.

Teams would be mostly rational, sure. They usually are. And right now we see teams spending within their budgets and the Yankees buying up entire international classes (substantively). I guess we could always hope it eventually course corrects and we only have three or four years of 1/3 of the league accumulating the top amateur talent in the game. Though the ripples from that would stretch out a good decade or more, and would also free up more money for those clubs (already advantaged in this regard) to spend on free agents at the MLB level.

[Stotle]

I'd rather balance revenues than cap salaries. Caps are hailed as necessary for competitive balance when their main purpose is to transfer assets from players to owners. Just like the draft.

How do you propose to artificially balance revenues? That already exists in a limited form through revenue sharing, and it of course pisses off teams handing the money over. How would balancing revenues work in practice? What are the changes you're implementing?

[DrungoHazewood]

How do you propose to artificially balance revenues? That already exists in a limited form through revenue sharing, and it of course pisses off teams handing the money over. How would balancing revenues work in practice? What are the changes you're implementing?

We're obviously in crazy world here, so I don't know what is more on the "plausibly implementable without magic" side of the scale. I'd love to go back in time and have open leagues and independent competing leagues to natually balance revenues to a much greater extent than today. I'd like to eliminate territorial rights and encourage expansion into NYC, LA, Chicago, etc (probably coupled with dividing up into several leagues). I'd be okay with much bigger revenue sharing.

Yes, teams balk at having "their" revenue taken away. It's difficult to convince a Steinbrenner that he's unjustly benefitting from a monopoly. But players chafe at having things taken from them, and fans chafe at prices, too. We can't all get what we want.

[DrungoHazewood]

Thankfully the Yankees/Dodgers/Red Sox/etc. don't have massive revenues relative to other teams in the league today. I guess you're right -- no issue here.

Teams would be mostly rational, sure. They usually are. And right now we see teams spending within their budgets and the Yankees buying up entire international classes (substantively). I guess we could always hope it eventually course corrects and we only have three or four years of 1/3 of the league accumulating the top amateur talent in the game. Though the ripples from that would stretch out a good decade or more, and would also free up more money for those clubs (already advantaged in this regard) to spend on free agents at the MLB level.

It may be better today, as teams like the Browns and Phils probably had many moments of near-insolvancy while the Yanks were pretty much always lighting cigars with $100 bills.

You could also limit teams to, say, 40 protected players and everyone else was a free agent every year. The 41st best player from the Yanks' mega signings would just go to the team that had the best spot for him.