New CBA proposal on draft lottery

[Frobby]

54 minutes ago, wildcard said:

The discussion I have read is to not have a team draft in the top 5 two years in a row.  2022 would be the fourth year the O's have drafted in the top 5.   That could be a reason the lottery begins in 2022. Plus the commish hates the Angelos for the lawsuit.  He will stick to them if he can.

I will worry about this if I see any plugged-in source reporting that it’s possible these rules will go into effect for the 2022 draft.   Until then, I don’t share your concern that this could happen.

[wildcard]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I will worry about this if I see any plugged-in source reporting that it’s possible these rules will go into effect for the 2022 draft.   Until then, I don’t share your concern that this could happen.

Have you read anything coming out of the CBA talks that says the lottery will not be implemented in 2022?

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Have you read anything coming out of the CBA talks that says the lottery will not be implemented in 2022?

I haven’t read much coming directly out of the CBA talks, period.   But I have read opinions of others like Kevin Goldstein that any draft-related changes won’t be implemented this year, and my common sense also tells me that.   Like I said, when there’s evidence to the contrary I will worry about it - not before.  

[Sports Guy]

18 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Have you read anything coming out of the CBA talks that says the lottery will not be implemented in 2022?

I don't need to read anything to understand common sense.  They aren't going to implement a rule that effects something done under an old CBA.  Now, is it possible that this is part of the negotiation and it gets negotiated into things?  Yea I guess but I don't know why they would.  The reason for doing it is to discourage tanking and that already occurred.  There really isn't any incentive on either side to do it.

Its like the arbitration rule. If they were to change it, I am guess it won't apply to players already in the majors(or maybe 1 year or less time in the majors)  Its a going forward type thing.  This isn't a CBA to help the past.  Its to help the future.

[NCRaven]

Taking away the Orioles 1-1 Pick in 2022. 

Lawyer up and LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!  Angelos vs. Manfred II.  Ali - Frazier was nothing compared to the fight of the 21st Century.  $250 on MASN Pay per View.

[bobmc]

It'll take ten years to resolve though.  We will have won a WS by then!

[RZNJ]

7 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I think teams are taking for a higher pick/higher draft pool and, mainly, to save money.

Its funny when people act as if it’s some righteous strategy and the only way you can contend again.  It’s just completely foolish and the sale jobs being done by these organizations are absolutely brilliant.  I’m just surprised so many smart people fall for it.

We're surprised that you aren't falling for it!

[spiritof66]

5 hours ago, Pickles said:

There was no alternative to years of losing when Elias took over.  The die had been cast.

Well, there's losing and there's years of pitiful, self-induced laughingstock-level losing. I don't buy the argument that there was (or is) no alternative to the latter.

In general, I agree that Elias is doing what he had to do. But much of that has been the easy part: lose, get high draft choices, invest in international talent. The hard part is putting together a contending AL East team, and the time for that -- and for judging Elias -- seems to be drifting further and further away.

I do have a few gripes with Elias' overall stewardship of the Orioles. Here they are:

The first is that he could have enabled Hyde to put a better team on the field by spending an additional (hard to quantify) $20  or $30 million for talent upgrades in each of the last few years. (The number $23 million appeals to me for a start. I'd like to think that if I owned the team, and I had pushed for the Davis contract, I'd have said a few years ago something like, "I don't look at Davis's salary as part of the Orioles payroll. That was my mistake, and I'll pay for it separately.") There is no reason the team had to be as bad as it's been the last couple of full seasons. Do you trust that current ownership will put all or most of the dollars they saved by skimping on ML payroll to work in improving the team in the future? I sure don't.

The second is that, so far as I can tell, Elias and the Angeloses have not taken into account the effect of a long period of terrible baseball on the Orioles' fan base. This isn't Chicago or Houston. Those are huge cities with enormous numbers of large corporations, service firms (law, accounting. consulting, etc.) and wealthy individuals to buy season tickets and luxury boxes. Both, especially Houston, have the opportunity to expand regionally into very populous exurbs and outlying regions. Both cities attract continuous hordes of well-paid young people starting or furthering their careers in energy or finance or law or accounting or entertainment or whatever. If those teams lost some fans because they've been so bad during the first stage of a rebuild, they can pretty easily be replaced. If the Orioles' years of being real bad causes fans to desert them for the Nats or Phillies or Yankees or Braves or soccer or virtual sports or video games or whatever, it's going to be hard to replace them. I would think that's especially true for kids: when you're a young baseball fan, five years of following a team feels like 10 or 15. (Growing up in Philadelphia, I started out as a Phillies, and secondarily A's, fan in 1957. I became an Orioles' fan for a number of reasons, but one of them was the Phillies' seemingly hopeless series of eighth place finishes from '58 through '61, which the A's almost matched.)

Third, Elias's repeated invocation of the Astros' success story makes it sound like he thinks, and we should think, that aping everything the Astros did provides the only way forward for a bad team. This is a different team in a different city, playing in a different division, with different strengths and weaknesses and different financial resources (and without garbage can lids, so far as I know). I'm convinced there's no single magic sauce -- including Astroball -- for building a successful ballclub. To cite two obvious differences, the Orioles don't play in a weak division, and the Orioles' owners will (I believe) be much less able, and willing, than multi-billionaire Astros owner Jim Crane (whose far-flung interests likely are still generating substantial income, unlike the Angeloses' law firms) to commit big bucks after that metaphorical switch is flipped. (Will there be a switch-flipping ceremony or announcement, or will each of be on our own to guess whether and when it happened?) And when he talks about Houston's success, Elias makes it sounds like he planned and implemented the turnaround by himself. I'm not clear what his role was beyond the fact that he wasn't in charge. I guess I don't really care what it was.

Finally, and I grant this is minor, I am put off by Elias's pronouncements, like the recent one, in the nature of "This is hurting me as much as (or more than) it's hurting you." I don't give a damn how unpleasant being in charge of a terrible ballclub is for Elias. Do the job you were hired to do, and do it to the best of your ability. If it hurts too much, you can ask for more money, or you can quit. Or you might even try doing something differently from the Astros. But I don't need to hear about your suffering. To paraphrase the old Super Chicken catchphrase, you knew the job would entail lots of losing when you took it. I'm kind of amused, but also annoyed, that this time around Elias has thrown in "It's tough for the owners." Really? What "owners" is he talking about? Did one or more of those unnamed owners tell Elias that the situation is tough on them? Who? Are the owners finding it tough to be making millions while putting baseball's crappiest team on the field? Is that toughness the reason they never seem to show up at Camden Yards to watch the mess that is their team? This sounds to me like Nixon saying the Watergate prosecutions were tough -- do the owners think, or does Elias think, that those owners had something to do with creating the situation the Orioles are in? In any event, their supposed distress as owners easily could be put to an end, and I'd be all for that. 

[wildcard]

Boy, We need Spring Training to start.   Watching Adley, Grayson, DL, Gunnar,  Westburg, Mountcastle, Cedric on the same field will do wonder for the conservation around here.    We will see the future and some of the present.   I for one can't wait.   Get the agreement done and get the guys on the field.

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Boy, We need Spring Training to start.   Watching Adley, Grayson, DL, Gunnar,  Westburg, Mountcastle, Cedric on the same field will do wonder for the conservation around here.    We will see the future and some of the present.   I for one can't wait.   Get the agreement done and get the guys on the field.

I am very thankful that the minor leagues are not affected by this.   Adley, Grayson, Gunnar and others can go to MiL camp if the lockout is still ongoing.   Hall unfortunately is on the 40-man roster and would have to stay home.   

[Can_of_corn]

10 hours ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

The real problem is not taking, its that low revenue/small market teams can not consistently compete with high revenue/large market teams.  Tampa Bay is somehow able to do it year in and year out, but most teams need to tank to reload their farm systems and get rid of large contracts.  I don't care what the business is, having 3X the money to spend is a huge advantage.  If all teams had approximately the same revenue, would teams still be tanking?  I don't think so.

Teams tank in the NFL, NBA and NHL.

I don't think we can blame income inequality.

[billhatf]

I'm not sure how much it would hurt the orioles under the current regime.  They haven't taken the high dollar consensus pick over the last couple of years anyway.  Herstjad and Cowser (I think) would still have been there for them at number 5.

[RZNJ]

20 minutes ago, billhatf said:

I'm not sure how much it would hurt the orioles under the current regime.  They haven't taken the high dollar consensus pick over the last couple of years anyway.  Herstjad and Cowser (I think) would still have been there for them at number 5.

True, but the underslot on Kjerstad was spent on Mayo and Baumler.  At #5 they wouldn't have had the same amount of pool money to do that.  Of course, they could have gone close to slot for Austin Martin but that's another story.

[forphase1]

55 minutes ago, billhatf said:

I'm not sure how much it would hurt the orioles under the current regime.  They haven't taken the high dollar consensus pick over the last couple of years anyway.  Herstjad and Cowser (I think) would still have been there for them at number 5.

This keeps being thrown around, and while technically accurate that the players they picked at those spots would likely have been available at a lower slot, the money that was saved due to perhaps picking them a few spots higher enabled us to get some overslot guys that we may or may not have had the money to sign otherwise.  Just focusing on the actual players and picks is not seeing the bigger picture behind the draft strategy.  

[justD]

On 1/28/2022 at 3:17 PM, wildcard said:

The discussion I have read is to not have a team draft in the top 5 two years in a row.  2022 would be the fourth year the O's have drafted in the top 5.   That could be a reason the lottery begins in 2022. Plus the commish hates the Angelos for the lawsuit.  He will stick to them if he can.

According to this article by Evan Drellich, the MLB is proposing what you state, but the MLBPA's proposal is this:

Quote

• Small-market teams that finish in the bottom eight based on winning percentage in two straight seasons, or in the bottom 12 in three straight seasons, can’t participate in the lottery.

• Large-market teams that finish in the bottom four in the previous two seasons, or in the bottom eight in three years, are ineligible for the lottery.

The MLBPA's proposal is much more interested in dividing teams into two camps - small-market teams and large-market teams - and then applying draft pick rules to each camp differently.  So there's also this:

Quote

After the first eight picks are determined by that lottery, the draft order then would begin with small-market clubs in reverse order of winning percentage the previous year, followed by large-market teams in reverse order of winning percentage.

And finally, this:

Quote

 Smaller-market teams that make the postseason receive a draft pick right before Competitive Balance Round A. Smaller-market teams that finish with at least a .500 record receive a draft pick right before Competitive Balance Round B.

"Its proposal is not only intended to disincentivize tanking but to also incentivize winning by granting teams that do well additional draft picks."

https://theathletic.com/3101823/2022/01/31/lets-talk-about-cba-issues-the-draft/